WoowyBaby
Member
Yep, I looked into LMCF! I’ll add some useful tricks for LR phase to my main post.
Maybe there will be a battle LMCF vs. Skis Method ???
Maybe there will be a battle LMCF vs. Skis Method ???
However, as a rider, I propose a name change to “Snowboards”Bump- I added a explanation video and more example solves to my Skis Method post
Scramble: L2 U F2 D2 F2 D' F2 L2 D' R2 B2 U2 R F2 D2 B' U2 R U' L
U M2 F' R' U' R U R' // Skis
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // CLL
U2 x' U2 M U' M2 U' x M U' M2 x U M2 u' M E' // LR
x' U M U' M' U' M' U M2 U M' // LSE
41 STM
Scramble: B2 U2 L U2 L F2 L2 B2 F2 D2 L U L' F L' F2 L2 R' B2
(y2)
R2 U2 F' R B' F2 // Skis
U R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' // CLL
U M' U // LR Pair
x y U2 M' U' // LR Pair
S2 M' U' // Align
y' x' U M' U M U' // EO
M2 U2 M // L/R
U' M2 U M2 U' // 4c
38 STM
Scramble: U2 F L2 U2 F D2 R2 D2 L2 U2 B2 R' D' U' L F L R2 D F2
(z y')
R' U2 B' R U' R U2 R' U R' U' R // Skis
U2 R U' R' F R' F' R // CLL
y' R2 E' R2 D U' M2 x U' M U2 M2 U' // LR
x' M' U M' U2 M U M2 U2 M U M2 U' M U2 M u' U // LSE
48 STM
Scramble: F2 D L2 F2 L2 F' U2 F' R2 B' D2 B2 L2 D' L2 R F2 L F' U2
(x2 y)
L' U R' U L // Skis
y F' R U R' U' R' F R // CLL
M2 u R2 z M U2 x U M2 U' // LR
z y U' M U M' U2 M U' M2 U' // LSE
30 STM
@WoowyBaby this is your method, so you get to name it anything you like. Anything. Call it something completely random and funny, do whatever!However, as a rider, I propose a name change to “Snowboards”
Fluffy Alligator already exists, lol. No one really talks about it though. Here a video if you're interested.maybe I’ll name this fluffy alligator???
@WoowyBaby I like the look of the skis method a lot. If you can somehow do L and R well, I think that it could be really good. An E2L approach would probably work. Also, CLL is definitely better than CMLL, and it could be possible to one look skis+corners, as it's one looking a 2x2+2 edges. As a plus, LSE is already highly developed.
Optimization will be slightly needed for CLL, as most 2x2 algs would work. And compiling a lot of the L&R cases to see if you could find a good way to do it when the edge is in placed and flipped (for example) and finding good ways to solve the majority of cases.
Yeah, I do agree LR is definitely the step with the most room for improvement and optimizations, and I’ll try to add more useful tricks/algs to my main post, and yes a LMCF E2L approach is useful.
I kinda want clear up the reason I named it LR is because in the LSE step LR you solve an edge pair. In Skis, if you do decide to solve it in two pairs of edges, it doesn’t have to be left side color then right side color or anything (LR≠Left&Right). I guess my naming of the step LR wasn’t so smart. Oh well.
For CLL, basically all 2x2 algs work, but for 3x3, RUD algs become accessible like R2 D’ R U2 R’ D R U2 R where on the 2 you’d do something else. I’ll soon add a spoiler on my main post with CLL algs.
lol I’ve edited my main post like fifty times xd the more the merrier amirite
ImmolatedMarmoset I’m sorry if your gigaminx method idea is forever buried :/ hopefully not =)
At what point do ideas ‘merit their own thread’? What things go on the SS Wiki?
It makes sense if these aren’t answered, they’re just my thoughts.
In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.Hi! Yeah, Gigaminx<3x3 so I’m not too worried about it. Also, instead of just solving FL FR BL BR in the LR stage, it seems to me you could also do UL UR FL FR or UL UR BL BR. Would that make LR better?
Or FB centers?My thoughts have been to solve LR centres sooner too.
Oh! Sorry I must not have seen that part. I’ll keep thinking of different ways to improve L/R.What? In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t care about Left/Right colors.
New 2x2x4 method.
Its basically reducing to a 2x2x3, but I think the way I get there is unique.
Also, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4
The steps:
Corner Orienation - Return the puzzle back to tower shape. Since you're just orienting a 2x2, use Guimond orientation (16 algs)
Horizontal Layer - Hold the puzzle horizontally, with the oriented corners on the right and left. The goal of this step is to solve a layer using Rw, U2 and F2 (to preserve CO). This step is pretty intuitive.
CLL - Do CLL, just like on 2x2. There are only 7 cases (U3, U4, T5, T6, H1, H2 and Y-perm) which will show up because the corners are oriented on the left and right. You can also solve a diagonal face and do EG-2, but not as many people know it, and the algs are worse. You can't use two-look CLL here because it'll screw up CO.
2x2x3 - Now it's a 2x2x3 with the E-slice solved. Use @WoowyBaby 's method because eveything else sucks (sorry PBL)
Does this already exist? If it does I'll delete ASAP.
Example solve:
Scramble: U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2 (Made by merging a 2x2x3 scramble and a 2x2 scramble)
R' U R //orientation (3/36)
z' y2 R2 F2 //layer (2/36)
Rw U Rw' U2 Rw U Rw' U Rw' F Rw F' U'//CLL (13/36)
z U2 R2 U R2 D2 //left block (5/36)
R2 //right pair (1/36)
U' R2 U R2' F2 U' R2 U R2' U F2 U //PL5C (12/36)
36 Moves (but extremely lucky, average movecount is probably somewhere between 40 - 50)
True dat xDAlso, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4
-Well you can simulate a 2x2x4 too! Wide R L F B U D + Normal U D! Although you can't get the shape shifting cause it’s a 4x4, it still solves the same way.
I do agree, with my method there's no way to spam TPS during pairs, your method is better.I do however think my method is better for spamming TPS
For the Skis Method?
No, I don’t know what you’re thinking, it’s an intuitive step, there no way to make LR algorithms.
It’s like trying to make an alg set for CFOP Cross, it just doesn’t make sense.
Thanks for that LMCF rant we needed......As the developer of LMCF I would disagree dramatically; in fact solving your skis-LR step would be very algorithmic. The latest LMCF document is vastly out of date (by years) and since its publication vast advancements have been made to the LMCF method which I have been wanting to finally compile into a new document, and most of the development has happened in the transition & E2L phases primarily because of the poor ergonomics that the E2L phase originally had (it was the weakest of the phases, since LMCF is EG-Transition-E2L-LSE).
For LMCF the trick to E2L is to first solve more edges U and D edges in the transition phase (giving you more lookahead time to plan E2L), then choose a flow that minimizes regrips and rotations during E2L; and this is done by making decisions during lookahead and choosing alternate E2L algorithms (or choosing a different pair to solve) based on the current state of the cube; by knowing multiple E2L algs for each case you can choose one that does not require a regrip or rotation leading into the next pair or LSE. Most E2L algorithms solve UL-UR plus optionally E slice edges or D-slice edges. For Skis-LR, the problem is targeting the four E edges will not be ergonomic at all; you will instead more likely solve UL+UR plus either FR+FL or BR+BL, then do an x/x' and finish with LSE. The reason I feel LMCF still holds an advantage because it doesn't place any constraints on which edges are solved, maximizing luck and maximizing freedom to solve easier pairs and triplets. I have (long ago) tried LMCF variants that solve additional D layer edges during the corners solve, making variants similar to Skis-LR. The most obvious choice is to solve the BD edge during EG, since almost all EG algorithms do not affect the BD edge; to be fair, the vast majority of EG algorithms do not affect the DL or DR edges either; so in fact you could start with Skis-EG and make it much easier to form the skis on the 1st step. From there my personal preference would be to solve the L/R edges in an unconstrained fashion using the E2L pairs, triplets and quadruplet algorithms (recent advances in LMCF means that triplets are now the most commonly solved with the occasional quadruplet on luckier solves). Of course in LMCF, LSE is made significantly more complicated by the fact that you can end up with the last six edges where you have M-slices edges unsolved and two edges on the R face that are unsolved (with L face fully solved), or vice versa, and this configuration requires Waterman LSE algorithms which were very poor in their 1988 form (in terms of TPS and ergonomics), and I have recalculated/regenerated all the Waterman LSE algorithms now for way faster TPS and ergonomics, and in a previous post I showed that with the improved Waterman algorithms, in most cases the 'bad' LSE case where two edges are unsolved on the R face (or L face) often ends up faster than the Roux situation, because in the Roux situation you are finishing with 2-gen MU, whereas in the Waterman LSE case the algs are 3-gen RMU with lots of RU and very few M (some are even 2-gen rRU).
Over the last few years LMCF speed potential has greatly increased. However I am still realistic and Roux and ZBRoux, in my opinion, still hold a very slight advantage; however I do not believe their advantage will last long since LMCF still is fairly undeveloped and even in a fairly undeveloped state it is almost as fast and ergonomic as Roux and ZBRoux which are in my opinion the currently fastest methods.
The hurdle with LMCF is that for maximum speed potential there are a lot of algorithms, and ZBRoux and CFOP+ZBLL are the most similar in terms of algorithm count, each requiring around 550 algorithms. I currently use about 300 algorithms for LMCF but I am at a disadvantage because there are still about 250 algorithms that I haven't memorized, and for those cases I need to solve in 2 steps instead of 1.
yeah, I thought about that. You could get used to 2 extra colors for LSE, and I don’t think it would be that hard. I’m not CN, only Y/W CN, but I do think it’s possible. It would be harder for me to blockbuild on say, blue than it would be to do LSE.In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.
MAY 5TH EDIT: AHHH I MISUNDERSTOOD- yes solving UL UR BL BR could be better but then your color scheme is wrong for LSE and most people are only white/yellow neutral, so this would only be considered if you’re color neutral. (are you?)
Or FB centers?