• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
573
Location
Char
I think that just CPline then EO is better, maybe instead of tracking CP while doing EO, tracking EO while doing CP is a better Idea.

I've tried this out--tracking EO while doing CPFB is harder than you'd think (you have to keep track of 11 pieces + where the centers are over the course of ~11 moves), and if you don't track EO then the recognition seems difficult.

I break down the advantages and disadvantages of this variant in my original post a while back up in this thread, read that pls
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
448
I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
1- Parity cubeshape
2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
4- Reduced PBL subset
Step one and two could probably be done in one look, by an experienced squanner (I'm making that a word). Three is a reduced subset of ESCP (EOCP), where the top layer's permutation can be ignored, and would have 14 or 38 algs, depending in whether you use M2 first to reduce it to an easier case. Step four would have 210 algs, including non-parity EP and PLL. This could be a three look method, with a feasible number of algs, which would be crazy.
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
800
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
Visit Channel
I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
1- Parity cubeshape
2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
4- Reduced PBL subset
Step one and two could probably be done in one look, by an experienced squanner (I'm making that a word). Three is a reduced subset of ESCP (EOCP), where the top layer's permutation can be ignored, and would have 14 or 38 algs, depending in whether you use M2 first to reduce it to an easier case. Step four would have 210 algs, including non-parity EP and PLL. This could be a three look method, with a feasible number of algs, which would be crazy.
It looks like a lot like the Vandenbergh method
 

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
597
Hey guys, so here's the first draft of my N4 method (yet another ZZ 4x4 method.) PM me is you'd like to help me look into this further. The main goal of this was to minimize the amount of EO pairing while solving as well as drastically reducing rotations (also opens gates to M slice pairing in the beginning if you like that:))

1-L/R/D centers: Fairly easy, would recommend L/R first then put in D

2-Pair DB/DF edges and place in DL/DR: solvable with D or D'

3- Pair 1 more D layer edge + a corresponding E slice piece and put both oriented in E slice: 2 edges that make a 3x3x1 block (Orange White and Orange Green, Red White and Red Blue, etc)

4- Solve Last 3 Centers

5- Place line edges and solve 3x3x1 block with prepared edges: Hide block in the back of the cube

6- Solve one more 3x3x1 block: Same criterion, hide in back of cube

7- EO pair last 6 edges: I'd recommend that if you find parity to ensure that the parity is on a U layer edge to make blockbuilding easier

8- ZZ F2L

9- LL: Reccomend COLL and EPLL+Parity

If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll answer to the best of my ability. Still a work in progress and definitely in development, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to work with them to make improvements!
 
Last edited:

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
448
Okay. I was mostly annoyed because you didn't give any answer, but I accept the "most people can 3 look square one anyway". My point in proposing this method is that, like ZB, though most people might not find it an improvement, but some might.
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
573
Location
Char
What, the analogy holds

"This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"

"ZB is a possible improvement to CFOP"

Surely the dude didn't generate 700 algs if he didn't think it were a possible improvement.
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
800
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
Visit Channel
What, the analogy holds

"This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"

"ZB is a possible improvement to CFOP"

Surely the dude didn't generate 700 algs if he didn't think it were a possible improvement.
wait they genned all of them? if so I'm impressed.
The thing I have against like vandenbergh in general is there are a few people sub-15 with roux& screw, so lol.
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
573
Location
Char
34 STM 2GR Example Solve

No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.

F2 R2 B2 L2 F2 D L2 D2 F2 U R2 F' U F' D R F L F L2 U2
z y // insp
U u2 r' f r f // EOPair 6/6
u r F r // 2GLine 4/10
U' M2 E2 // Block 3/13
R2 U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U z' // F2L 10/23
R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // 2GLL 11/34
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
800
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
Visit Channel
34 STM 2GR Example Solve

No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.

F2 R2 B2 L2 F2 D L2 D2 F2 U R2 F' U F' D R F L F L2 U2
z y // insp
U u2 r' f r f // EOPair 6/6
u r F r // 2GLine 4/10
U' M2 E2 // Block 3/13
R2 U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U z' // F2L 10/23
R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // 2GLL 11/34
Are these speedsolves?
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
573
Location
Char
They're not timed solves, but they are me typing up the first thing I see on alg.cubing.net. So I don't really sit and think about what to do
 
Top