The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[ShyGuy1265]

Mattia Furlan seems to prefer forming white edges first on very big cubes, albeit without actually forming a cross. (video)

Humans are slow at decision-making, and the difference in efficiency between choosing any edge versus choosing only among white edges is reduced for larger cubes, so this might be a reasonable tradeoff.

I think it is easier to find edges when you are color neutral. You have more options.

 

[DELToS]

I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.

Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
Step 3: CELL (Corners of the Last Layer without regards to the last layer Edges, 42 cases, algs not generated)
Step 4: LE-OLL (Insert last cross edge while finishing OLL: Last Edge + OLL, 14 cases. Algs: http://bit.ly/2mBdtAV)
Step 5: Edge PLL

Example solve (random scramble from csTimer):
D' F2 R U' L' U B L' D' F U F2 R2 D2 F2 D R2 B2 U' B2 U'

Step 1: x2 U2 L F'
Step 2:
- F2L 1: R2
- F2L 2: U L U2 L' U y L U L'
- F2L 3: Lw' U2 Lw Dw R U2 R' L U' L'
- F2L 4: R U R'
Step 3: U' F R U R' U' F'
Step 4: Dw' M' U2 M (easy case)
Step 5: U' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'

48 moves (minus rotations), but this scramble probably could have been solved with much less because I'm not the best at F2L.

Method pros:
- Super easy crosses are pretty common
- Cross to F2L transition is a bit easier than CFOP
- LE-OLL cases are pretty easy to memorize and execute, and there are only 14 of them
- There's a bit more freedom with F2L I think
- Easy to switch from CFOP
- You can very commonly cancel moves while transitioning from LE-OLL to EPLL

Method cons:
- CELL may not be worth it to learn (again, algs haven't been made)
- I find that I rotate more than in CFOP
- I'm not sure how lookahead compares to CFOP

After doing an Average of 50 with this method, I got a 16.02 Mo3, 18.46 Ao5, 19.77 Ao12, 21.82 Ao50, and a 13.20 single! I think this may have a bit of potential.

 

[xyzzy]

I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.

Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
Step 3: CELL (Corners of the Last Layer without regards to the last layer Edges, algs not generated yet)
Step 4: LE-OLL (Insert last cross edge while finishing OLL: Last Edge + OLL)
Step 5: Edge PLL

This is essentially 3CFCE, which is okay-ish. I used to do something like that when I got weird pieces stuck in the cross, though now I just insert the correct cross piece as soon as I notice, rather than deferring it to the end of the solve.

You're trading off doing a full cross and 2LLL (OLL/PLL) for marginally (?) better F2L cases and 3LLL (CLL / 2-look L5E); it's hard to tell if this is a good trade-off or not. The added freedom during F2L from having a 3/4 cross seems difficult to exploit, and for maximum effect, you would have to learn how to make use of the "hole" in the cross from all four possible locations.

Full L5E has a lot of cases and is pretty hard to recognise, but if you use edge control (during F2L or CLL) to always force 0-flip or 4-flip cases, the case count drops to something reasonable to learn (~70 cases).

 

[Neuro]

I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.

Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
Step 3: CELL (Corners of the Last Layer without regards to the last layer Edges, algs not generated yet)
Step 4: LE-OLL (Insert last cross edge while finishing OLL: Last Edge + OLL, 14 easy cases)
Step 5: Edge PLL

Example solve (random scramble from csTimer):
D' F2 R U' L' U B L' D' F U F2 R2 D2 F2 D R2 B2 U' B2 U'

Step 1: x2 U2 L F'
Step 2:
- F2L 1: R2
- F2L 2: U L U2 L' U y L U L'
- F2L 3: Lw' U2 Lw Dw R U2 R' L U' L'
- F2L 4: R U R'
Step 3: U' F R U R' U' F'
Step 4: Dw' M' U2 M (easy case)
Step 5: U' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'

48 moves (minus rotations), but this scramble probably could have been solved with much less because I'm not the best at F2L.

Method pros:
- Super easy crosses are pretty common
- Cross to F2L transition is a bit easier than CFOP
- LE-OLL cases are pretty easy to memorize and execute, and there aren't that many of them.
- There's a bit more freedom with F2L I think
- Easy to switch from CFOP
- You can very commonly cancel moves while transitioning from LE-OLL to EPLL

Method cons:
- CELL may not be worth it to learn (again, algs haven't been made)
- I find that I rotate more than in CFOP
- I'm not sure how lookahead compares to CFOP

After doing an Average of 50 with this method, I got a 16.02 Mo3, 18.46 Ao5, 19.77 Ao12, 21.82 Ao50, and a 13.20 single! I think this may have a bit of potential.

This reminds me a lot of Hawaiian Kociemba. HK goes a little something like this if you're not familiar already:

1: EO F2L edges and 3/4 cross (usually leave out R CE)
2: F2L (still w/o LCE)
3: HKOLL (orients all pieces w/o solving LCE)
4: HKPLL (permutes puzzle)

What I see happening is HK without EO and breaking HKOLL into 2 looks while solving corners, leading to an easier LL. Both are equally viable, so it's probably be personal preference from that point.

EDIT: Leaving out the last cross edge can make things MUCH more difficult if you get an F2L edge stuck there. I'd either force a LL edge into the slot or just use the LCE.

 

[DELToS]

This reminds me a lot of Hawaiian Kociemba. HK goes a little something like this if you're not familiar already:

1: EO F2L edges and 3/4 cross (usually leave out R CE)
2: F2L (still w/o LCE)
3: HKOLL (orients all pieces w/o solving LCE)
4: HKPLL (permutes puzzle)

What I see happening is HK without EO and breaking HKOLL into 2 looks while solving corners, leading to an easier LL. Both are equally viable, so it's probably be personal preference from that point.

EDIT: Leaving out the last cross edge can make things MUCH more difficult if you get an F2L edge stuck there. I'd either force a LL edge into the slot or just use the LCE.

If there's an F2L edge in there, you can easily connect it to its corner with M' U M or something like that, it isn't really too inconvenient

 

[crafto22]

EDIT: Leaving out the last cross edge can make things MUCH more difficult if you get an F2L edge stuck there. I'd either force a LL edge into the slot or just use the LCE.

That's why I find leaving the front CE out is much better, since one can then easily just pair it up with M' U/U2/U' M. However HK isn't really that viable in my opinion since orientation of specific pieces in often times even more difficult or confusing than orienting them all, and just using plain old FreeFop is more efficient and flows a lot better.

 

[Neuro]

That's why I find leaving the front CE out is much better, since one can then easily just pair it up with M' U/U2/U' M. However HK isn't really that viable in my opinion since orientation of specific pieces in often times even more difficult or confusing than orienting them all, and just using plain old FreeFop is more efficient and flows a lot better.

I agree with your thoughts on HK. The way I see it, it should be a method with no EO whatsoever (doing EO is basically useless if you are just going to do F2L like in CFOP or don't use it to influence LL.)

To improve HK, I'd do this:

1: Arrow (Missing front CE)
2: F2L (Same as CFOP, use M to pair if necessary)
3: HKOLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)
4: HKPLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)

I think that the method that DELToS proposed is quite viable if used properly and this new variant of HK could be on an equal playing field.

 

[DELToS]

I agree with your thoughts on HK. The way I see it, it should be a method with no EO whatsoever (doing EO is basically useless if you are just going to do F2L like in CFOP or don't use it to influence LL.)

To improve HK, I'd do this:

1: Arrow (Missing front CE)
2: F2L (Same as CFOP, use M to pair if necessary)
3: HKOLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)
4: HKPLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)

I think that the method that DELToS proposed is quite viable if used properly and this new variant of HK could be on an equal playing field.

Thanks! Any suggestions on how I could improve the method? Do you think it's alright enough to make a new thread for?

 

[crafto22]

Thanks! Any suggestions on how I could improve the method? Do you think it's alright enough to make a new thread for?

Absolutely not original enough for its own thread. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it just resembles too many other methods far too much for it to require its own thread. If you find something more unique to add on, it could qualify for its own thread.

 

[DELToS]

Absolutely not original enough for its own thread. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it just resembles too many other methods far too much for it to require its own thread. If you find something more unique to add on, it could qualify for its own thread.

Okay, well I added a link a link to the LE-OLL algs onto my original post

 

[Neuro]

Okay, well I added a link a link to the LE-OLL algs onto my original post

I don't see the link?

 

[DELToS]

I don't see the link?

oops, added now

 

[DELToS]

I'm also thinking of just combining steps 1 and 2 because there's so many ways to go about solving the F2L minus one cross piece. You can do 3/4 a cross and then the F2L, solve 2 Roux blocks and insert the last edge in the back, start by making a Petrus block, make a 2x2x2 block and expand upon that, etc.

 

[shadowslice e]

I'm also thinking of just combining steps 1 and 2 because there's so many ways to go about solving the F2L minus one cross piece. You can do 3/4 a cross and then the F2L, solve 2 Roux blocks and insert the last edge in the back, start by making a Petrus block, make a 2x2x2 block and expand upon that, etc.

Check M-CELL in my sig.

 

[DELToS]

Check M-CELL in my sig.

I read it over, but M-CELL doesn't seem to be identical to what I have, mine seems like a more simple approach (but possible not as effective) to what you have, if I'm reading it right

 

[crafto22]

An improvement on Waterman:

1. Solve a layer minus one cross edge (15 moves)
2. Solve the remaining corners with CxLL (9 moves)
3. Rotate the cube so D becomes L, with the missing edge at UL
4. Solve two redges with an E2L algorithm (6 moves)
5. WaterRoux-style L7E (15 moves)

I've found lookahead is pretty good, but this is SUPER alg Also heavy You could alternatively solve three redges one by one, which is a lot easier, and then just do LMCF L6E, which would give you around 50 moves as oppose to 45, but better lookahead beats lower movecount if you ask me.

 

[Neuro]

I finished all of the TCMLL+/- algs and put in the CMLL algs for completion sake. Since I was using CubeExplorer, some of the algs are pretty nasty. If you have a better alg, please leave a comment and feel free to ask to become a contributor as well. Here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit#gid=670959495

**the movecount formula used only works with OBTM, so algs using M will need to have the movecount manually entered

Looking at the above improvement on Waterman, the main thing that I was trying to avoid when I proposed the initial variant of WaterRoux to efattah was the built-in rotation that Waterman has. I also wanted to get away from building a face because of the number of pieces that one would have to find in inspection. So while I do view the above as a nice improvement on Waterman in and of itself, I fail to see how it's better than WaterRoux. But I'm probably just being closed minded, it looks like it could have potential. @crafto22 do you think you could do an example solve?

 

[Neuro]

Also, here's a potential L2L variant that utilizes Petrus elements:

1: Roux FB placed on bottom
2: Finish 2x2x3 (pseudo or real, doesn't matter)
3: Petrus style EO
4: F2L but with ANY edges in E slice
5: COLL
6: L6EP (this is probably going to have a TON of algs)

It's probably trash and may be more suited as a ZZ variant, but let me know your thoughts

 

[efattah]

An improvement on Waterman:

1. Solve a layer minus one cross edge (15 moves)
2. Solve the remaining corners with CxLL (9 moves)
3. Rotate the cube so D becomes L, with the missing edge at UL
4. Solve two redges with an E2L algorithm (6 moves)
5. WaterRoux-style L7E (15 moves)

I've found lookahead is pretty good, but this is SUPER alg Also heavy You could alternatively solve three redges one by one, which is a lot easier, and then just do LMCF L6E, which would give you around 50 moves as oppose to 45, but better lookahead beats lower movecount if you ask me.

I have considered all these variants and as far as a 'Modernized Waterman' goes, I think the best variant is the rotationless variant mentioned earlier:
1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
3. Execute an EG1-style or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
4. Solve two R-layer edges at once in a pair algorithm (LMCF style) or if possible solve a triplet (UL, and two redges)
5. Finish with L7E or Waterman L6E

This adds 42 EG1-style algorithms, 80 L7E algorithms and about 24 LMCF algorithms to the original Waterman, which was itself heavy in algorithms. I think it would be fast and quite fun though. It is quite similar to WaterRoux though. One could honestly call it a variant of WaterRoux.

 

[Neuro]

1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
3. Execute an EG1-style or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
4. Solve two R-layer edges at once in a pair algorithm (LMCF style) or if possible solve a triplet (UL, and two redges)
5. Finish with L7E or Waterman L6E

I think that this would work if second block or DR square is absolutely terrible. If you can recognize that quickly enough, then this can help to still keep the solve going while also keeping movecount relatively low. I'd consider it a WaterRoux variant, but I'm sure that'll be debated on.