# XG (New Method Based on Fridrich!)

#### Lucas Garron

##### Moderator
Staff member
Yo, I've been kinda thinking and came up with this good idea for cube solving. I think its an expert method, so Ill post it here. Its called Xtreme-Garron, or also "XG".

Anyhow, you know how normally you solve with Fridrich when you do cross, then 4 slots, then you have OLL and PLL. Except that F2L and OLL and PLL have so many algs. Theres intuitive F2L, some peaple call it, but that doesnt really make you less cases to know.

So, my idea is, you do F2l kinda like normal. But instead of knowing so many algs u just use a few. Its much easier to keep only those in your head, and use the same fast ones and get practice on doing them fast eevry solve. Like, you split up each pair and instead of "pair, then insert," you do "insert corner, then insert edge." So you insert corner with RUR' or RU'R' or RU2R'U'RUR', then do edge with URU'R'F'UF or R'U'R'U'R'URUR. These are just some sample algs I pcicked, feel free to use your own.

FOR EXAMPLE!
Lets say you have the F2L case you get by setting up R U F2 R' F2 R'
Normally youd solve it by doing R U2' R' U2 R U' R'
But with XG, you do U2 R U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U R U R. Two simple algs, and its not that much longer.

Therefore, the advantage is you only need to keep 5 algs in your head (4 if you use F'U'F instead of RU'R' for that case), and its always the same. F2l becomes much simpler, and you can easily practice to be fast. With enough practice, this will work good as an expert method. Im not saying that everyone should use XG instead of Friedrich, but its a fast alternative that has some great potential, yeah.

So, to the LL. Well, instead of OLL, PLL, you split up the steps.
What you do for OLL, is you use Compound OLL.
If you dont know, its a ool idea by Lucas Garron, where you do the OLL in only one look, even if you do two algs for the case.
You use R U R' U' r R' U R U' r' for opposite edges casew but you do r U R' U' r' R U R U' R' if theyre adjacent. But you use U M' U' R' U' R U M2' U' R' U r if you get unlucky and get all 4 edges flipped (poor you). As you probably know, its impossible to get 1 or 3 flipped edges.

Anyhow, after you do edges, you do one of the 7 corner cases (unless corners were right at the beginning of the step). Those, you can find all over the internet or on the wiki. Theyre the ones with all the edges flipped yellow up. You see, the edge algs in compOLL keep the corners in place, allowing you to do the corner case in the same place as before the edge alg, so you can see the case before. You can then learn more OLL cases, but you don't need to, because your OLL is already ONE LOOK.

But then for PLL, you do like normal 2-look PLL. Its only 6 cases in two steps, what you do is first place the corners (but like relative to each other, doesnt have to be the centers), then do one of the EPLL algs. Macky has a good description here. But make sure not to use his OLL method, but actually use compoundOLL.

But why not learn full PLL to get fast, you ask? Well, you do OLL in one look, two algs. To be consistent, you should keep PLL two looks. And kinda like compOLL, you can get used to recognize what will be EPLL fast, before youre done with the meving corners alg. And you can always use more PLLs, my suggestion is not, since your time is better spent practicing doing XG really fast.

Yeah, so thats XG. Im happy I discovered such a cool expert method, I hope some of you here will like it (and maybe use it ). I think its a good balance of speed but simplifies the steps so its easy but still fast and expert.

#### dbax0999

##### Member
+1

My first thought when I saw the thread name was: "Surprise Challenge? Wait, this is Lucas Garron"

#### Waffle's Minion

##### Member
Interesting... But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.

None the less, incredible.

#### Waffle's Minion

##### Member
Did i miss out on something?

#### skwishy

##### Member
Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?

#### Waffle's Minion

##### Member
Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?
Thank you! Thats what i thought too! But it sounds like it has less algs.

#### qqwref

##### Member
this method is XTREME

Can you get a sub-20 average with this, Lucas? I'd like to know how it competes with Triangular Francisco. (Of course, I'd expect at least a sub-10 average eventually, but I doubt you're going to be totally used to this method for a little while.)

#### riffz

##### Member
He's saying that you use edge orientation algs that don't alter the corners so you can see the corner OLL at the same time without memorizing the OLL that comes afterward.

But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.

#### Waffle's Minion

##### Member
That s what it sounds like. Lucas, could you clarify?

#### qqwref

##### Member
Uh... Itsn't this jsut putting in a corner, then edge then 4LLL which is worse than a normal 4LLL?
It's sort of hard to explain... you'd really have to be an expert on cubing theory to immediately understand why this method is better than Fridrich. If you're not you could just spend a few weeks doing this method alone - I guarantee you'll see how awesome it is after some serious practice.

#### Davepencilguin

##### Member
It seems that with having a few fast algorithms and more steps than Fridrich, you'll be able to look ahead faster and easier.
But the total number of moves needed would be alot higher.

So which is better?
Having a higher MPS count and a shorter time between steps, but a higher total amount of moves per solve...
or a lower MPS count and slightly longer times between steps, but a lower total amount of moves per solve?

#### Lucas Garron

##### Moderator
Staff member
But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.
Sure, but its really not necessary.

Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?
No. It's absolutely not intuitive F2L. Its corners, then edges. And its a special, good 4LLL.

this method is XTREME

Can you get a sub-20 average with this, Lucas? I'd like to know how it competes with Triangular Francisco.
After a few warmup solves:
21.53 avg12: 21.18, 21.28, (23.68), (17.06), 21.66, 21.83, 21.89, 21.37, 19.46, 22.66, 23.66, 20.26

Uh... Itsn't this jsut putting in a corner, then edge then 4LLL which is worse than a normal 4LLL?
No, it itsn't. Its jsut putting in 4 corners and 4 eddges, and then using an LL which is better that a "normal" 4LLL.

But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.
You dont understand the method, dont you? You do PLL with T-perm or Y-perm, then EP algs like Bert or Arne or Allan. You dont have to know full PLL.

It's sort of hard to explain... you'd really have to be an expert on cubing theory to immediately understand why this method is better than Fridrich. If you're not you could just spend a few weeks doing this method alone - I guarantee you'll see how awesome it is after some serious practice.
Well, youre right. Its hard to immediately understand. But I can kinda explain: Fridrich may be fast, but XG is pretty fast and not as complicated.
But yeah, you need to spend a lot of time on this method to understand the benefits qqwref and I can understand.

Having a higher MPS count and a shorter time between steps, but a higher total amount of moves per solve...
or a lower MPS count and slightly longer times between steps, but a lower total amount of moves per solve?
Its TPS, not MPS, the common abbreviation. But the former is defiantly better.

#### Davepencilguin

##### Member
But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.
You dont understand the method, dont you? You do PLL with T-perm or Y-perm, then EP algs like Bert or Arne or Allan. You dont have to know full PLL.

That's all fine and dandy, but if you ALREADY KNOW PLL, what's the point in switching? If you know more algorithms, and can apply more in a solve, you will always be able to solve faster.
Simpler =/= better