The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Hazel]

I've also been thinking of a similar idea to Rubik's cubed, sort of a Last 2 Slots Last Layer subset where you insert the second to last slot while solving EO of any LL edges that are on the last layer, then insert your last slot using Winter Variation so you're guaranteed an OLL skip every solve.
Here's an example:

setup: R2 F' U2 R2 B F' U' B' U' F2 U2 R2 U2 R' U R'
R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' y R U R' // Third slot + EO
U L' U2 L' D' L U' L' D L U2 L // Fourth slot canceling into Winter Variation
U2 R U R' y' R2 Uw' R U' R' U R' Uw R2 U2 // G perm

 

[Teoidus]

Cfop/ZZ-CT variant:
The first part of the solve is like cfop. You build your cross and do two f2l pairs. Then you create a third pair but before you insert it you do an algorithm that orients the edges and inserts the pair. Then you can do tsle/ttll. Does this sound good?

It's better to use Ribbon.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

It's better to use Ribbon.

What's ribbon?

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

(new)
trigger style reduction-W
(TSR-W?)

0. find a way to make a 1x1x3 block and find the swap pair to reduce to trigger cp

1. make the 3x1x1 block in DB, then use F moves, triggers, and wide triggers (ex: R u R') to turn the 1x1x3 block into a 2x2x3 block, while keeping track of the swap pair.

2. solve eo, trigger cp, and DF intuitively

3. place the 2 remaining pairs trigger style

4. 2gll (84 algs)

 

[shadowslice e]

I've also been thinking of a similar idea to Rubik's cubed, sort of a Last 2 Slots Last Layer subset where you insert the second to last slot while solving EO of any LL edges that are on the last layer, then insert your last slot using Winter Variation so you're guaranteed an OLL skip every solve.
Here's an example:

setup: R2 F' U2 R2 B F' U' B' U' F2 U2 R2 U2 R' U R'
R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' y R U R' // Third slot + EO
U L' U2 L' D' L U' L' D L U2 L // Fourth slot canceling into Winter Variation
U2 R U R' y' R2 Uw' R U' R' U R' Uw R2 U2 // G perm

MGLS is probably better.

 

[JTay]

@Rubik's cubed This is the link to the main description of Ribbon: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms

This is the updated algorithms for every case (constantly updated): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D26FLNRhHs5RBXswyfjaKzL_5bboleo6YxYKq3osYGQ/edit?usp=sharing

I'll try to create a Speedsolving Wiki page for the method on Friday if I'm not too busy.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

@Rubik's cubed This is the link to the main description of Ribbon: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms

This is the updated algorithms for every case (constantly updated): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D26FLNRhHs5RBXswyfjaKzL_5bboleo6YxYKq3osYGQ/edit?usp=sharing

I'll try to create a Speedsolving Wiki page for the method on Friday if I'm not too busy.

This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.

oops I forgot to add the link!https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=D2_U2..._R-_U_R//F2L R-_F_R_U_R-_F-_R_F_U-_F-//OLL U_

 

[Sue Doenim]

Firstly, I don't think CFOP is worse than ZZ. I don't think enough has been done with EOCross for us to make much of a full comparison just yet, but if we're doing EOLine, then I'm fairly sure that CFOP is faster.

Secondly, method neutrality is far too much work. It requires double the practice to become only a little faster than you would be using just one of those methods. If you spent all the time on one method, you'd be faster. I'm currently about the same speed with each of the three methods you mentioned, and I know I could be so much faster if I had dedicated my time to a single method.

As for the probability of a pair being solved, the probability is approximately 1 - 1/e, or 63%.

Yeah, I guess I was kind of rude towards CFOP users. I was kind of thinking the people in this thread will certainly have more exposure to other methods, and realize that CFOP is maybe not lame, but certainly not the only feasible method. I dismissed it because I greatly prefer ZZ over CFOP, and having more that 2 methods at your disposal is kind of excessive. I personally still don't think method neutrality should be dismissed, and I will likely continue to use it as I described; however, since I'm really slow anyway (low 20s), I don't think it will have much of an impact, and it saves me the effort of switching methods every month or so, like I do. Besides, Feliks has many world records, and he uses several LL methods interchangeably.

This leads me to another thing I've thought about: CFOP/CFCE neutrality. Is this a good idea? It just means more algs to drill and slightly more difficult LL recognition, as for the first step you have to take into account not only EO and CO, but also CP.

This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.

I think the ribbon can be solved pretty much whenever you want, but it's easier to get it over with during the cross. If the pair is already made, you would have 16 algs, if not, several hundred. Your TTLL is U' R2 U2 R U' R' U R' U2 R2 U R U R'.
Pretend that's in the same font.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

one last question. how is this method for oh/big cubes/ feet?

 

[efattah]

Regarding the ancient debate of method neutrality, it seems to me that the best way to approach that idea is to use two methods for one phase of the solve only. This is already done where people will use OLL/PLL or ZBLL for the last layer, as an example. Another variant is neutrality between Roux and WaterRoux; after solving the first block, the difficulty of the second block dictates whether the next step is the 2nd block + CMLL with Roux or TLEG-1 with WaterRoux, but both methods converge again at LSE. Neither of these options address the ideal neutrality which would start at the scramble itself and converge prior to the halfway point to the same method.

By being neutral at only one phase of the solve the extra work is way less than a whole different method, and the gain is still big.

 

[JTay]

Just as good for OH as CFOP is for OH as they share ergonomics. Save a few moves over standard CFOP as well so it is technically better. I've enjoyed using it in big cubes and my 5x5 PB now ends with a Ribbon 3x3 stage. It's very easy if you do Yau or Hoya in which you solve the cross to also solve one of the E-Layer edges, letting you already have the full Ribbon done before you arrive at your 3x3 stage, effectively cutting your move count down. I also don't see any reason why Ribbon would not be good for feet.

 

[Thermex]

Hey everyone,
Apologies for being away from this thread for so long and not following up on a lot of the collaboration methods I was working on. I had to finish up a lot of stuff in school and broke my wrist, so I decided to take a solid 2 month break from cubing. Now my wrist is healed and summer's started, so I plan to sort of re-join this thread and get back into cubing. Is anyone able to catch me up on some of the ideas/methods produced in this thread recently? And also some of the methods I was supposed to work on (TEG, HD) that I never got around to? Thanks.
~Thermex

 

[Neuro]

HD is completed and a thread has been made on the forum! TEG I don't know. I created 2GRoux, a 2GR variant that is more similar to Roux (obviously) and has a lower movecount with easier steps and inspection IMO. I did a mega-post earlier talking about many different things, so look out for that. Ribbon has been greatly expanded, with OH algs being made, optimizations to TOLS, and I am almost done with Ribbon Beta, which is usually more efficient (reduces to ZZLL) A new guy popped up with a new CP Method but it's not finalized yet. And that's about it for new stuff on the thread, hope this helped!

EDIT: Here's a really cool solution I got using CFOP+Ribbon Beta. I saw a 6 move X Cross but quickly realized I could plan all the way up to PLS! So I had a 12 move F2L+Edge, and the rest of the solve was slightly less efficient than normal but I still got 39 moves

D2 F2 L2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U' L2 U B' D' R F L U2 R F2 D2

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B U' B y2//F2L+E (12/12)
U R U2 R' U R' F R F2 U2 F//PLS (11/23)
U R' D' L U' D R' D R U R' D2 L' D R2 U2//ZZLL (16/39)

Also, this scramble gets to L4C in 15 moves if anyone wants an FMC challenge

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B2 y2//F2L-1 (10/10)
R B U2 B' R'//L4C Setup (5/15)

 

[Thermex]

HD is completed and a thread has been made on the forum! TEG I don't know. I created 2GRoux, a 2GR variant that is more similar to Roux (obviously) and has a lower movecount with easier steps and inspection IMO. I did a mega-post earlier talking about many different things, so look out for that. Ribbon has been greatly expanded, with OH algs being made, optimizations to TOLS, and I am almost done with Ribbon Beta, which is usually more efficient (reduces to ZZLL) A new guy popped up with a new CP Method but it's not finalized yet. And that's about it for new stuff on the thread, hope this helped!

EDIT: Here's a really cool solution I got using CFOP+Ribbon Beta. I saw a 6 move X Cross but quickly realized I could plan all the way up to PLS! So I had a 12 move F2L+Edge, and the rest of the solve was slightly less efficient than normal but I still got 39 moves

D2 F2 L2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U' L2 U B' D' R F L U2 R F2 D2

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B U' B y2//F2L+E (12/12)
U R U2 R' U R' F R F2 U2 F//PLS (11/23)
U R' D' L U' D R' D R U R' D2 L' D R2 U2//ZZLL (16/39)

Also, this scramble gets to L4C in 15 moves if anyone wants an FMC challenge

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B2 y2//F2L-1 (10/10)
R B U2 B' R'//L4C Setup (5/15)

Thanks Neuro! I already created the wiki page on the HD method (link here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/HD_Method) but I still need you guys to put some links to the alg sheets. I think I'll probably just PM effatah about TEG, I feel kinda bad about not genning those algs. Is it alright if you explain Ribbon beta a bit more? I'm pleasantly surprised by the success of the method but would like to somehow contribute to the alg-genning a little more now that I have more free time.

 

[Neuro]

Ribbon is being divided into several variants that go by the Greek alphabet. Ribbon-Alpha is the OG, sollving TOLS and ending in TTLL. Ribbon-Beta is my variant, with PLS and ZZLL as the steps. Beta is more consistent and generally more efficient than Alpha with less algs (if you factor in the OLL's) PLS setup is super simple and takes a max of 3 moves, simply insert the last F2L edge in either oriented or disoriented. In PLS, one will insert the LC and orient as well as phase the LL edges, which leaves you with ZZLL to solve the puzzle. Almost every solve I have done with it has been under 30 moves for LSLL, where Alpha is is usually just over 30 and standard LS OLL and PLL is slightly higher than Alpha. The only real problem is getting used to recog as it varies from standard CFOP drastically. PLS requires you to look at a lot of pieces but it's not too bad (and it's easyish to predict) and ZZLL is actually not bad at all with practice.

For minimal OLS in ZZ, why not learn sets for when the corner is in the slot (all orientations), CLS, and WV/SV? It seems like the setup would be efficient enough that learning 500+ OLS cases would be kinda pointless. I'd only suggest this until TTLL gets much better algs (as CT is better) but hey it's an interesting concept if you want PLL every time

 

[Thermex]

Oh, so ribbon-beta was that method you posted a while ago. I like both but I think many CFOP users will find Ribbon-Alpha a little more concrete with easier recog, although it does look like beta is slightly more efficient. I know WaterRoux did kinda get forgotten but I do plan on reviving soon with a new variant I've been thinking about the last few days. Well, doesn't seem like I've missed too much on this thread, so I'm probably gonna get back to work on TEG and WaterRoux. Thank you for the responses, Neuro.

 

[Neuro]

Hey so I just came up with a pretty cool LLOB variant, not sure what to call it but it looks like it could be really fast

1: FB- Self explanatory
2: F2L-1 corner
2a: SB - 1 corner (this is really easy, just build one square and insert LE)
2b: DF and DB, MU
3: TOLS
4: TTLL

This has much less algs than standard LLOB (266 with OLL and PLL counted in comparison to 493) while having easier recog. Aside from algs, you may have one rotation in the solve but it's really not an issue. It's less efficient but it's not so far off that a user can't get the same times using either. This is about the same as reg Roux in terms of efficiency.

F2B is really fast (maybe faster than F2L {Kian propaganda}), MU is really fast but it's definitely the worst portion of the solve (although with practice it can probably be done sub-2 easily), and TOLS/TTLL is just a matter of drilling algs which are all pretty fast (optimization=sub 1 all algs). This should yield very fast solves if used correctly.

Considering using this as my main method, it looks really nice right now!

Here's a pretty standard solve using this, 46 moves

L B2 L U2 L U2 B2 L2 F2 R B2 D' F' U F D2 R' B' L R F2

y M2 F' B' R U B2
r' U r U r2 U' r' U' R M U M' U2 M U2 M2
y U2 r U r2 F2 r2 U' r2 F2 r
U' R2 D U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D' R2 U2

 

[JTay]

Perhaps a better option than that, @Neuro, as much as I love my Ribbon algs, would be to do EO+DFDB, leaving you with only CLS into PLL. I believe it has comparable movecount, but with only half of the algorithms. However, as I have not experimented much with Roux and LLOB, I can't confirm how difficult or easy that middle step would be.

 

[Neuro]

In mine it's pretty easy. EO+DFDB wouldn't be terrible, but it's probably slower/harder to recognize. I suspect that CLS/PLL would get around 55-60 moves, while mine is about 48 on average. It could be better for OH though, it just depends on how far TOLS can be optimized for it. I made a list of potential variants of LLOB and I will test them all thoroughly to see efficiency (probably 50 solves each, maybe more if I have time)

1: ZBLL- Put in DFDB while doing EO (full FB/SB) and solve with ZBLL
2: O/P- Put in DFDB (full FB/SB) and finish with CFOP
3: CLS/P- Put in DFDB while doing EO (1 corner sissing) and so CLS+PLL
4: RA- Put in DFDB (1 corner missing) and do TOLS+TTLL
5: RB- Put in DFDB (1 corner missing) and do PLS+ZZLL

And if you are Jabari (won't be testing these, likely impractical)

A: Put in DFDB (full FB/SB) and 1LLL
B: Put in DFDB while correcting CP (full FB/SB) and 2G1LLL (for you wannabe Jabari's )



Here's a pretty crazy solve using LLOB Ribbon Alpha (maybe RAOB?) 33 moves!

D2 F2 L' U2 R B2 L U2 B2 D2 R U' R U2 L' F' D F2 L U2

z2 y' F2 r F' D B2//FB (5/5)
U' r' U' M U' r' U R' U2 M2 U M' U' M//F2L-C (14/19)
y R' D' R U2 R' D R//TOLS (7/26)
R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2//TTLL (7/33)