The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Daniel Lin]

K
here's something for ZZ

During ZZF2L, instead of making two 1*2*3 blocks on the left and right, you can make one 2*2*3 block on the left or on the right

Spoiler: Example

random scramble: B' L2 F2 L2 D2 R2 U2 F' R2 D2 U2 L' B2 D' U' R D R B2 F'

F B' U B U2 L2 D' //EoLine
U R' U R U2 R2 U R //Square
L U L' R U' R'// Right block
z U' R' U' sexy R U R' //Big block
U R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U R' U' R U' R' U//2gen ZBLL
48 HTM

If you're neutral between solving it the normal way and solving it this way you have a higher chance of getting lucky cases.

Sorry if this is a dumb idea or if it's been proposed before (I haven't read all 100 pages of this thread)

 

[JimCube]

K
here's something for ZZ

During ZZF2L, instead of making two 1*2*3 blocks on the left and right, you can make one 2*2*3 block on the left or on the right

Spoiler: Example

random scramble: B' L2 F2 L2 D2 R2 U2 F' R2 D2 U2 L' B2 D' U' R D R B2 F'

F B' U B U2 L2 D' //EoLine
U R' U R U2 R2 U R //Square
L U L' R U' R'// Right block
z U' R' U' sexy R U R' //Big block
U R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U R' U' R U' R' U//2gen ZBLL
48 HTM

If you're neutral between solving it the normal way and solving it this way you have a higher chance of getting lucky cases.

Sorry if this is a dumb idea or if it's been proposed before (I haven't read all 100 pages of this thread)

I tried your solves and it was awesome. Not sure about effieciency tho.

 

[TDM]

Sorry if this is a dumb idea or if it's been proposed before (I haven't read all 100 pages of this thread)

I think this is the most proposed ZZ variant.

 

[S1neWav_]

I like to leave 2 opposite edges swapped in cross if it's easier. If you can do some form of CP during OLL, then you'll end up with an EPLL, which can often result in a PLL skip if you do some setup moves and M2 U2 M2. If you can't do any CP, you can still sometimes force a better PLL case (e.g. getting a T-perm instead of an F-perm). Also, adding onto the actual method proposed, I feel like it wouldn't be that hard to learn recognition. We've already done it for normal PLL, and this is practically the same thing, but different cases. I think it's a pretty cool idea, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to learn all the algs.

Yeah know I see your point, my variant is for people who like learning algs and case recognition. I'm not an algorithm kind if person, I prefer intuition. But there are pros and cons, so this could be an experimental idea...

 

[S1neWav_]

Another thing is that if you are completely free in the placement of cross edges, you could end up with an EPLL (U-perm, H-perm, Z-perm) on the bottom. How would you deal with those? You could do the regular PLL, followed by an x2 or z2, and then the EPLL or learn even more algs, neither of which is that great.

EDIT: Not full 4x4 PLL, only the adjacent and opposite edge swap cases.

You should try to align as many edges as possible before the f2l to avoid nasty edge swaps, and the D layer adjustment could easily be seen during inspection.

 

[Sion]

Here's an idea I was pondering for a substep of Roux.

Instead of creating one block at a time, what if you solve each block simultaneously? I alternate between PCMS and Roux, and I always feel dumbfounded when I created a CE pair, and it was for the wrong block. Not just that, In Roux, it's also a little annoying when F moves are blocked. In PCMS, which is my main method, it gets super confusing when you really have nothing to refer off of, which Roux has. So here's an Idea of what I call S²B (Sion's Simultaneous Blocks). S²B still ends up with two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite Layers, sort-of like the relation of ZZ F2L to CFOP F2L, which two different ways of getting to the same state. Below is a VERY detailed explanation of the steps, but it's really simple.

1: Create a 1x2x2 Block on either the R or L face.
2: Create another Corner-Edge Pair with the same D layer color as your first block. However, Unlike Gilles's F2B, which just solves one whole block then moving onto the next, S²B allows the freedom of creating one of the other CE pairs that , which could absolutely help when trying to be move efficient.
3a: If you created the CE pair that makes a complete 1x2x3 block (L/R Color adjacent), you can continue on with the second block.
3b: If you create one of the other two possible CE pairs that does not solve a 1x2x3 block (Diagonal or F/B Color Adjacent), Place it in it's respective slot, and Create another 1x2x2 block on the opposite face of the first 1x2x2 block using the freshly solved CE pair (eg: First 1x2x2 block on the R face, create the opposite 1x2x2 block on the L face).
4b: Solve the last two CE pairs intuitively to finish the first two blocks.

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

Here's an idea I was pondering for a substep of Roux.

Instead of creating one block at a time, what if you solve each block simultaneously? I alternate between PCMS and Roux, and I always feel dumbfounded when I created a CE pair, and it was for the wrong block. Not just that, In Roux, it's also a little annoying when F moves are blocked. In PCMS, which is my main method, it gets super confusing when you really have nothing to refer off of, which Roux has. So here's an Idea of what I call S²B (Sion's Simultaneous Blocks). S²B still ends up with two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite Layers, sort-of like the relation of ZZ F2L to CFOP F2L, which two different ways of getting to the same state. Below is a VERY detailed explanation of the steps, but it's really simple.

1: Create a 1x2x2 Block on either the R or L face.
2: Create another Corner-Edge Pair with the same D layer color as your first block. However, Unlike Gilles's F2B, which just solves one whole block then moving onto the next, S²B allows the freedom of creating one of the other CE pairs that , which could absolutely help when trying to be move efficient.
3a: If you created the CE pair that makes a complete 1x2x3 block (L/R Color adjacent), you can continue on with the second block.
3b: If you create one of the other two possible CE pairs that does not solve a 1x2x3 block (Diagonal or F/B Color Adjacent), Place it in it's respective slot, and Create another 1x2x2 block on the opposite face of the first 1x2x2 block using the freshly solved CE pair (eg: First 1x2x2 block on the R face, create the opposite 1x2x2 block on the L face).
4b: Solve the last two CE pairs intuitively to finish the first two blocks.

People do this already, and most of the time there are more efficient ways...

 

[DELToS]

My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C

I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:

1) First 4 Columns: The first step is to solve the corners of the first layer and the edges of the second layer at the same time, much like F2L pairs, but less moves are required than F2L as it's more efficient.
2) Corners of the Last Layer: It's all in the name. You solve the corners of the last layer of the cube. You can just use COLL algorithms, but there are probably shorter algorithms for some cases because you don't have to preserve the edges of the first layer. I only reccomend learning these ones if you want to get really serious about the method. I call the algorithm set CNLL (Corners of the Last Laster without regards to the Non-Equator edges). These algorithms are not yet generated.
3) Edges of the First Layer: These can be solved using M and U moves, as well as rotations. But for the last edge, you would use an algorithms (still using only M and U moves) to solve EOLL as well, so there is no OLL at all. I have created these algorithms by hand and I will put them below.
4) EPLL: Solve the remaining edges on the top layer using PLL algorithms. The corners should already be solved. These cases include both U permutations, as well as the H and Z permutations. There is a 1/12 chance for a skip of this step.

Pros of this method:
- Low overall move count, providing you're good at the first step.
- The last 2 steps can be done with only M and U moves (plus some rotations on the 3rd step).
- The algorithms for LE-OLL (last edge OLL, the algorithm set for the 3rd step) are very easy to learn because there are only M and U moves.
- The first step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you're good at it.
- I assume look ahead isn't very difficult for the first step.
- Overall fairly straightforward and not a difficult concept to grasp.
- Recognition is VERY easy for LE-OLL (you only have to look at the top side).
- There is the option to learn 176 algorithms for LE-OLL to be able to always skip EPLL.

Cons of this method:
- The first step takes lots of time and practice to get good at.
- 60 algorithms total (although you may know some of them, including the 4 EPLLs)

Finally, here are all the algorithms for LE-OLL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-w199qf5vxWtXRJLJlVCstCobG2852IbNAJRz_OoCr8/edit?usp=sharing

 

[JTWong71]

My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C

I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:

1) First 4 Columns: The first step is to solve the corners of the first layer and the edges of the second layer at the same time, much like F2L pairs, but less moves are required than F2L as it's more efficient.
2) Corners of the Last Layer: It's all in the name. You solve the corners of the last layer of the cube. You can just use COLL algorithms, but there are probably shorter algorithms for some cases because you don't have to preserve the edges of the first layer. I only reccomend learning these ones if you want to get really serious about the method. I call the algorithm set CNLL (Corners of the Last Laster without regards to the Non-Equator edges). These algorithms are not yet generated.
3) Edges of the First Layer: These can be solved using M and U moves, as well as rotations. But for the last edge, you would use an algorithms (still using only M and U moves) to solve EOLL as well, so there is no OLL at all. I have created these algorithms by hand and I will put them below.
4) EPLL: Solve the remaining edges on the top layer using PLL algorithms. The corners should already be solved. These cases include both U permutations, as well as the H and Z permutations. There is a 1/12 chance for a skip of this step.

Pros of this method:
- Low overall move count, providing you're good at the first step.
- The last 2 steps can be done with only M and U moves (plus some rotations on the 3rd step).
- The algorithms for LE-OLL (last edge OLL, the algorithm set for the 3rd step) are very easy to learn because there are only M and U moves.
- The first step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you're good at it.
- I assume look ahead isn't very difficult for the first step.
- Overall fairly straightforward and not a difficult concept to grasp.
- Recognition is VERY easy for LE-OLL (you only have to look at the top side).
- There is the option to learn 176 algorithms for LE-OLL to be able to always skip EPLL.

Cons of this method:
- The first step takes lots of time and practice to get good at.
- 60 algorithms total (although you may know some of them, including the 4 EPLLs)

Finally, here are all the algorithms for LE-OLL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-w199qf5vxWtXRJLJlVCstCobG2852IbNAJRz_OoCr8/edit?usp=sharing

Isn't this just PCMS with a different way of solving the D/U Layer Edges?

 

[Sion]

My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C

I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:

1) First 4 Columns: The first step is to solve the corners of the first layer and the edges of the second layer at the same time, much like F2L pairs, but less moves are required than F2L as it's more efficient.
2) Corners of the Last Layer: It's all in the name. You solve the corners of the last layer of the cube. You can just use COLL algorithms, but there are probably shorter algorithms for some cases because you don't have to preserve the edges of the first layer. I only reccomend learning these ones if you want to get really serious about the method. I call the algorithm set CNLL (Corners of the Last Laster without regards to the Non-Equator edges). These algorithms are not yet generated.
3) Edges of the First Layer: These can be solved using M and U moves, as well as rotations. But for the last edge, you would use an algorithms (still using only M and U moves) to solve EOLL as well, so there is no OLL at all. I have created these algorithms by hand and I will put them below.
4) EPLL: Solve the remaining edges on the top layer using PLL algorithms. The corners should already be solved. These cases include both U permutations, as well as the H and Z permutations. There is a 1/12 chance for a skip of this step.

Pros of this method:
- Low overall move count, providing you're good at the first step.
- The last 2 steps can be done with only M and U moves (plus some rotations on the 3rd step).
- The algorithms for LE-OLL (last edge OLL, the algorithm set for the 3rd step) are very easy to learn because there are only M and U moves.
- The first step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you're good at it.
- I assume look ahead isn't very difficult for the first step.
- Overall fairly straightforward and not a difficult concept to grasp.
- Recognition is VERY easy for LE-OLL (you only have to look at the top side).
- There is the option to learn 176 algorithms for LE-OLL to be able to always skip EPLL.

Cons of this method:
- The first step takes lots of time and practice to get good at.
- 60 algorithms total (although you may know some of them, including the 4 EPLLs)

Finally, here are all the algorithms for LE-OLL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-w199qf5vxWtXRJLJlVCstCobG2852IbNAJRz_OoCr8/edit?usp=sharing

Most of the steps here (1,2, and 4) are already part of a well-known method called PCMS (It is my main method acutally, so yeah!). Many people come up with it, and it is actually an excellent method. The part that i'm interested in is your LE-OLL, which is really interesting. I'm not sure if it is L5EOP, so if you can explain the difference, it would be nice.

 

[DELToS]

Most of the steps here (1,2, and 4) are already part of a well-known method called PCMS (It is my main method acutally, so yeah!). Many people come up with it, and it is actually an excellent method. The part that i'm interested in is your LE-OLL, which is really interesting. I'm not sure if it is L5EOP, so if you can explain the difference, it would be nice.

I can't see any difference, but for whatever reason L5EOP has 4 more cases where the last edge of the first layer is already solved, which I don't understand.

 

[DELToS]

Actually, it seems like "my" method and PCMS are identical except that in PCMS center location doesn't matter until later in the solve

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C

I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:

1) First 4 Columns: The first step is to solve the corners of the first layer and the edges of the second layer at the same time, much like F2L pairs, but less moves are required than F2L as it's more efficient.
2) Corners of the Last Layer: It's all in the name. You solve the corners of the last layer of the cube. You can just use COLL algorithms, but there are probably shorter algorithms for some cases because you don't have to preserve the edges of the first layer. I only reccomend learning these ones if you want to get really serious about the method. I call the algorithm set CNLL (Corners of the Last Laster without regards to the Non-Equator edges). These algorithms are not yet generated.
3) Edges of the First Layer: These can be solved using M and U moves, as well as rotations. But for the last edge, you would use an algorithms (still using only M and U moves) to solve EOLL as well, so there is no OLL at all. I have created these algorithms by hand and I will put them below.
4) EPLL: Solve the remaining edges on the top layer using PLL algorithms. The corners should already be solved. These cases include both U permutations, as well as the H and Z permutations. There is a 1/12 chance for a skip of this step.

Pros of this method:
- Low overall move count, providing you're good at the first step.
- The last 2 steps can be done with only M and U moves (plus some rotations on the 3rd step).
- The algorithms for LE-OLL (last edge OLL, the algorithm set for the 3rd step) are very easy to learn because there are only M and U moves.
- The first step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you're good at it.
- I assume look ahead isn't very difficult for the first step.
- Overall fairly straightforward and not a difficult concept to grasp.
- Recognition is VERY easy for LE-OLL (you only have to look at the top side).
- There is the option to learn 176 algorithms for LE-OLL to be able to always skip EPLL.

Cons of this method:
- The first step takes lots of time and practice to get good at.
- 60 algorithms total (although you may know some of them, including the 4 EPLLs)

Finally, here are all the algorithms for LE-OLL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-w199qf5vxWtXRJLJlVCstCobG2852IbNAJRz_OoCr8/edit?usp=sharing

To summarize: this method is literally just a variant of FreeFOP, accept the arrow is instead solved before LL edges. Maybe viable?

 

[Teoidus]

It's more a PCMS variant than FreeFOP variant. I'm not sure solving all the cross edges after columns is the most efficient way to solve after columns (think best is still to solve two opposite edges, then LSE), since it's basically just 3 edges into L5EOP.

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

It's more a PCMS variant than FreeFOP variant. I'm not sure solving all the cross edges after columns is the most efficient way to solve after columns (think best is still to solve two opposite edges, then LSE), since it's basically just 3 edges into L5EOP.

The variant of FreeFOP I am referring to is the one in which you solve the arrow (3 cross pieces), solve the pairs, CLL, and L5E. F4C (literally a different way of saying columns first) does columns, arrow then L5E, however it is also easily relatable to PCMS. FreeFOP is one of my main methods so I just saw it as that.

 

[Teoidus]

Yeah, I've never heard of FreeFOP having "variants". As far as I understand it, it's just free blockbuilding for the F2L -> OLL, PLL. What you're describing seems closer to columns

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

Yeah, I've never heard of FreeFOP having "variants". As far as I understand it, it's just free blockbuilding for the F2L -> OLL, PLL. What you're describing seems closer to columns

Well, it's not really variants just different ways to do LL. F2L-1, "OLL" then PLL is the most common "variant".

 

[VDW1014]

Hey I'm Alex. I have made a method that finishes similar to roux, but works out the E-Layer Edges in a new way. It is more of a roux variant to solve for fun. Please check it out and give me feedback. IF YOU DECIDE TO EDIT SOMETHING, GO TO

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:VDW_Method

and let me know what you want to edit followed by your name.

my method is here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/VDW_Method

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

Hey I'm Alex. I have made a method that finishes similar to roux, but works out the E-Layer Edges in a new way. Please check it out and give me feedback. IF YOU DECIDE TO EDIT SOMETHING, GO TO

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:VDW_Method

and let me know what you want to edit followed by your name.

my method is here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/VDW_Method

Interesting. I feel like this is one of those methods that has been proposed before several times. So, if I am not mistaken, the steps of the method are as follows:
1. Roux blocks, without the E layer edges.
2. CMLL
3. Solve E slice
4. L6E
Basically Roux with an extra step. And more moves, worse ergonomics, less fluidity, and maybe worse lookahead? Let me explain:
The first step is not that many moves less than normal Roux blocks, which are usually solved around 6-8 moves. By doing your alternative first step, you are only cutting off 4 moves maximum and adding more moves to the 3rd step. Also, by doing this, your solve becomes much more restricted. Basically, by the end of the third step, your cube looks exactly the same (minus L6E) as a normal Roux solver's by the second step (if you count both blocks as one step). You are just building your blocks differently, and that is literally the only thing at separates your method from Roux. So, in summary, your method is Roux with a worse block building step.

 

[VDW1014]

Interesting. I feel like this is one of those methods that has been proposed before several times. So, if I am not mistaken, the steps of the method are as follows:
1. Roux blocks, without the E layer edges.
2. CMLL
3. Solve E slice
4. L6E
Basically Roux with an extra step. And more moves, worse ergonomics, less fluidity, and maybe worse lookahead? Let me explain:
The first step is not that many moves less than normal Roux blocks, which are usually solved around 6-8 moves. By doing your alternative first step, you are only cutting off 4 moves maximum and adding more moves to the 3rd step. Also, by doing this, your solve becomes much more restricted. Basically, by the end of the third step, your cube looks exactly the same (minus L6E) as a normal Roux solver's by the second step (if you count both blocks as one step). You are just building your blocks differently, and that is literally the only thing at separates your method from Roux. So, in summary, your method is Roux with a worse block building step.

My idea is to work a different way of F2L. This is not a speed solving method, it's just something I came up with on the fly for fun based on roux. I think also instead of a roux approach at the beginning, corners first could apply then add two edges to the bottom also. I also wanted to utilize the E Layer more and challenge myself to see if I could get fast while using a method where the E Layer turns are definitely present. This is more fun than boring CFOP and... I did plan on using roux in the last step anyway, that is why it is so similar. It's because I based it off of roux.