The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Shiv3r]

Hey anyone heard of lars petrus's ZBLL? he uses 40 quick algorithms and then uses a combination of two of them to solve any ZBLL, with only 2-3 more moves than optimal solutions. That means that case recognition and memorization of combinations is still there, but its only about 10% of the work. maybe as a trasition into full ZBLL??
also, the algorithms need to be modernized, and so someone needs to help me make better, right-handed algs for these cases, and help fix the cases and such? I would like some help for this. please?

 

[shadowslice e]

Hey anyone heard of lars petrus's ZBLL? he uses 40 quick algorithms and then uses a combination of two of them to solve any ZBLL, with only 2-3 more moves than optimal solutions. That means that case recognition and memorization of combinations is still there, but its only about 10% of the work. maybe as a trasition into full ZBLL??
also, the algorithms need to be modernized, and so someone needs to help me make better, right-handed algs for these cases, and help fix the cases and such? I would like some help for this. please?

You could try using the S/AS ZBLLs or just any ZBLLs in general as if you picked the right algs then you should be able to solve any ZBLL. One the other hand, there is COLL/EPLL.

However, I don't think you actually need to gen any algs as they all likely have corresponding ZBLLs (just pick the right cases from a list) which are pretty up to date so you could just use those.

 

[Shiv3r]

The Idea of lars petrus ZBLL's is that you can solve ZBLL in around 2-3 moves more with a combination of two of only 40 fast algs instead of 177.

 

[Shiv3r]

anyway, how is the line last layer(Its going on its own thread after the algs have been improved)

 

[adimare]

Just because we solve two pairs does not mean that we are solving heise.
Generalizations like that are like saying that CFOP has a cross and therefore it is actually just LBL. They are fundamentally different, no l3c or anything like that.

CFOP is LBL...

yes, especially because it restricts the amount of cases for a 1LLL to 18, including solved.

Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
1) Create the last F2L pair
2) Insert it
3) OLL
4) PLL

Here's what you propose:
1) Create a corner-edge pair with pieces from the LL
2) Create the last F2L pair
3) Insert the LL pair in the remaining F2L slot
4) F2L+L
5) 1LLL

So instead of creating and solving one pair and executing 2 algs, you're creating 2 pairs, inserting one, and then executing 2 algs.

 

[Shiv3r]

CFOP is LBL...


Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
1) Create the last F2L pair
2) Insert it
3) OLL
4) PLL

Here's what you propose:
1) Create a corner-edge pair with pieces from the LL
2) Create the last F2L pair
3) Insert the LL pair in the remaining F2L slot
4) F2L+L
5) 1LLL

So instead of creating and solving one pair and executing 2 algs, you're creating 2 pairs, inserting one, and then executing 2 algs.

I already know the CFOP killer, I suggest you try it.

ECE method, also called ABC(Adam-briggs columns) or Briggs-adam method.
Ive gotten some solves about equal to my regular (roux) times, and I felt like I was using a lower TPS, but I got the same time. its move-efficient, ergonomic, and fast.

 

[Shiv3r]

CFOP is LBL...


Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
1) Create the last F2L pair
2) Insert it
3) OLL
4) PLL

Here's what you propose:
1) Create a corner-edge pair with pieces from the LL
2) Create the last F2L pair
3) Insert the LL pair in the remaining F2L slot
4) F2L+L
5) 1LLL

So instead of creating and solving one pair and executing 2 algs, you're creating 2 pairs, inserting one, and then executing 2 algs.

and in fact, the LL pair is already in the slot when we create the F2L pair, so you only need to do some playing with it and you can figure out how to solve the F2L pair without disturbing the LL pair in the slot.

 

[adimare]

and in fact, the LL pair is already in the slot when we create the F2L pair, so you only need to do some playing with it and you can figure out how to solve the F2L pair without disturbing the LL pair in the slot.

Having to create the last F2L pair with the restriction that you can't upset the pair you inserted in the F2L slot makes the process harder, so I don't know why you're saying that like it's a good thing. And you still have the same amount of steps I listed (create a pair, insert a pair, create a pair, f2l+l, 1lll), so it's still a lot worse than CFOP.

 

[Shiv3r]

Having to create the last F2L pair with the restriction that you can't upset the pair you inserted in the F2L slot makes the process harder, so I don't know why you're saying that like it's a good thing. And you still have the same amount of steps I listed (create a pair, insert a pair, create a pair, f2l+l, 1lll), so it's still a lot worse than CFOP.

Its just as hard(actually easier than) learning F2L. you justhave to find out which cases don't destroy it, and monkey any case towards those cases(somewhat like in f2l, towards CE par and split pair cases).
If you haven't tried, you don't know do you?

 

[adimare]

Its just as hard(actually easier than) learning F2L. you justhave to find out which cases don't destroy it, and monkey any case towards those cases(somewhat like in f2l, towards CE par and split pair cases).

How can learning how to build 2 pairs and inserting one be easier than learning how to build and insert a single pair?

If you haven't tried, you don't know do you?

I have tried the method (the algs you posted for UBR clockwise and counterclockwise are backwards btw), and I've been doing Heise 2 pairs for a long long time, so I know all about creating 2 CE pairs after F2L-1. It's not easier than F2L.

 

[Shiv3r]

okay. fine. be a critic of every method you look at, just stay away from any decent methods. I could criticize F2L and CFOP all day, but I choose not to.

 

[Shiv3r]

How can learning how to build 2 pairs and inserting one be easier than learning how to build and insert a single pair?


I have tried the method (the algs you posted for UBR clockwise and counterclockwise are backwards btw), and I've been doing Heise 2 pairs for a long long time, so I know all about creating 2 CE pairs after F2L-1. It's not easier than F2L.

for the UBR algs, the clockwise twist is the twist from a correct orientation, not to twist it counterclockwise. make any sense?

 

[adimare]

okay. fine. be a critic of every method you look at, just stay away from any decent methods.

So what you're saying is that this method isn't one of the decent ones? Okay then

 

[TDM]

some douche just put this into this thread, instead of having its own thread like it did.
Its refined enough to have its own threat, like ZZ-HW

That's a nice way to talk about the mods.

I don't really know what you mean by "refined", but imo ZZ-HW could also have been in either this thread or the ZZ thread. Otherwise we're just going to get hundreds of threads about new methods, which is exactly what this thread was made to avoid.

(btw this is getting a bit off-topic now, so if you want to reply maybe PM me)

 

[Shiv3r]

That's a nice way to talk about the mods.

I don't really know what you mean by "refined", but imo ZZ-HW could also have been in either this thread or the ZZ thread. Otherwise we're just going to get hundreds of threads about new methods, which is exactly what this thread was made to avoid.

(btw this is getting a bit off-topic now, so if you want to reply maybe PM me)

but the only reason this thread exists is to kill ideas. And also, replies to your topic are mixed in with replies to other topics. its kinda annoying.

 

[stoic]

That's a nice way to talk about the mods.

Can't believe that post got to stay up.
Do we still even have mods?
I haven't seen any of them posting for ages.
This place gets more like a kindergarten every day.

 

[gyroninja]

but the only reason this thread exists is to kill ideas.

Not sure where you are getting that from. It seems to me like a breeding ground for ideas. It's a place to discuss what people are coming up with and give criticism on what's good / bad.

 

[Shiv3r]

Not sure where you are getting that from. It seems to me like a breeding ground for ideas. It's a place to discuss what people are coming up with and give criticism on what's good / bad.

Ive see some people that don't point out any good aspects, only the negative. I think that it has some kind of xenophobia in it: fear of the unknown.

 

[gyroninja]

Ive see some people that don't point out any good aspects, only the negative. I think that it has some kind of xenophobia in it: fear of the unknown.

Most of the time those ideas are not original and have been thought up before or are blatantly worse than what we currently do. I'm not seeing this xenophobia you are talking about. Most people will give your idea a fair chance of is original.

 

[Shiv3r]

Okay then, but the Line last layer is literally an 18 case 1LLL, doesn't that give it some credit? think about it: we reduced the amount of pieces to solve by 1/3 and we reduce the amount of cases from over 1k to double digits. thats actually kind of incredible.