• 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!

PetraPine

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
705
Location
Somewhere i guess.
YouTube
Visit Channel
i did. HD requires you to make 3/4 of a side and my method requires you to make 3/4 of a layer. This reduces to the total alg count of the method from 59 to 29. I know this isnt as good ass CLL or EG and possibly Ortega just as well as you do. I am just poining out the differences of this and HD.
but it would just be like worse?
so like why?
learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...
 

Ashton

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
7
So basically ZZ-blah but purely H? And OCLL/PLL is 100% faster and only has 28 algs.

Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback. :)
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
919
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)
im not mad.

but it would just be like worse?
so like why?
learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...
learning 29 is better. This can be a varient of HD.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,248
I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.

3/4 of a layer
TTLS (23 algs)
TTLL (corners only) (6 algs)

I have not learned all these algs yet but once I do, ima make a doc about this method. I do not have a name of the method yet so... yeah.

Check out VOP on the wiki.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
1,103
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version.


Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback. :)
For the R U' R' insert you should need something like 15 algs? I'm not sure exactly, but somewhere in that ball park.
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
919
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version.
Now we talkin
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
919
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
There's still a problem, that your method is identical to the VOP method. You build a V, orient everything, then permute everything, yes? That is identical to VOP.
ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------
 

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,505
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
SS Competition Results
ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------
People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,248
My point is just to create a good 2x2 method that has NOTHING to do with CF on 3x3.

I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.

2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.
 

PetraPine

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
705
Location
Somewhere i guess.
YouTube
Visit Channel
ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------
I already do this in good cases+already prob exist
and the best way to do it actually,
is to example
1.create white bar, add any yellow pieces as other two bottom pieces,
2recognize CMLL and solve CMLL
3.use a couple moves to solve pieces
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
919
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.

2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.
can i have a link to that a2 system thing?
 
Top