The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[qwr]

my gut feeling is that for many puzzles you start with intuitive moves (cross or first face or first layer or blocks) to greatly reduce the complexity the positioning of the pieces since at the start you have lots of freedom to not worry about messing up solved pieces. So for 3x3 you could work out algs for every possible cross but it's just easier to do it intuitively

 

[efattah]

If you set up the orientation step so that it does not affect permutation, then you would be able to 1-look the permutation phase and this would unquestionably result in the easiest 1-look 2x2 method, even if it wasn't the most efficient or fewest algorithms.
Unfortunately, the permutation step will have the same problem as ortega permutation, which is a lot of U2/R2/D2/F2/L2 moves which aren't great.

 

[qwr]

Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.

Yeah most of the time in ortega you only need 4 moves so you can (with practice) easily predict OLL. In fact 3 or 2 moves are pretty common too since you only need to make one face and not one whole layer.

 

[Jam88]

If you set up the orientation step so that it does not affect permutation, then you would be able to 1-look the permutation phase and this would unquestionably result in the easiest 1-look 2x2 method, even if it wasn't the most efficient or fewest algorithms.
Unfortunately, the permutation step will have the same problem as ortega permutation, which is a lot of U2/R2/D2/F2/L2 moves which aren't great.

Are you trying to say that R2 F2 R2 or R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 are bad algs?
IMO they are some of the best 2x2 ones.

 

[Deleted member 55877]

Are you trying to say that R2 F2 R2 or R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 are bad algs?
IMO they are some of the best 2x2 ones.

R2 F2 R2 (or R2 B2 R2, they're basically the same) are good algs.
R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 is awful imo

 

[Jam88]

R2 F2 R2 (or R2 B2 R2, they're basically the same) are good algs.
R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 is awful imo

I can sub 0.4 it

 

[ABCubeTutor]

since this is the thread for new methods, i'm going to again mention the ABCube Method:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ABCube_Method

which i just posted little over a week ago.

it is a direct solve for all complexity cubes, uses two patterns instead of memorizing algorithms, undoes parity instead of solving it, and is designed for beginners and non-cubers instead of speedcubers, but can be solved in any order of operations, so it can solve your last step, regardless of what your last step is.

thanks for your time and attention.

 

[carcass]

I just found a new, probably not as good alg for an oll case, should that go on this thread or a "new alg thread"? I couldn't find a thread about new algs specifically.

EDIT: maybe an experimental alg thread would be better, like a know alg that might have an unknown purpose, or maybe someone just wanted to know if an alg was good or not

 

[DNF_Cuber]

I just found a new, probably not as good alg for an oll case, should that go on this thread or a "new alg thread"? I couldn't find a thread about new algs specifically.

EDIT: maybe an experimental alg thread would be better, like a know alg that might have an unknown purpose, or maybe someone just wanted to know if an alg was good or not

A Collection of Algorithms

Here you can find algorithms to solve many different situations on the cube. If you have an algorithm you want to add, simply click on the link, and click on "Edit" at the top of the page, find the according case, and add it. Be sure to follow the syntax of the page before adding an algorithm...

www.speedsolving.com

 

[LukasCubes]

@efattah you are gonna love this

5x5 CORNERS FIRST!

The method is called 5CF Method and it is of 7 steps.

1. Corners (duh)
2. White and Yellow Centers (Dont mess up the corners)
3. 1 Layer minus an edge pair
4. 3 but on other side
5. Edge Pairing
6. Roux LSE
7. Last 4 Centers (L4C)

Yeah I know it is bad now and is not a god method but I think it has the potential to BECOME a god method. Below is a list of the steps and pictures for this method.

Step 1: Corners

Well it is a corners first method after all isn't it?

Step 2: White and Yellow centers

You need both of these solved without scrambling the corners. I would mainly use slice moves for this step. Some outer layer turns and wide moves are allowed as well.

Step 3: Waterman 1st Layer

So this is where you pair 3 edge pairs from one of the sides with an already solved center then you solve them.

Step 4: Step 3 but on other layer and you dont mess up 1st layer

Uh yeah so this is Waterman but on a 5x5 now. In all seriousness, just pair up the exact same edges you did for the other side and its easier to do Roux LSE (Which is step 6)

Step 5: Edge Pairing

This is the step that makes me think this has more potential than the other cubes will with this method. anyway, parity is a thing here but you can figure that out yourself. This works intuitively (other than parity).

Step 6: Roux LSE

This means just solve all the rest of the edges and the center-centers. Now all you have left (If you bothered to try) is the Last 4 Centers.

Step 7: L4C

Yeah the picture is much smaller than the others. L4C stands for Last 4 Centers. Just solve the centers with commutators and some algs and you are done. That is the method.

LINKS:
Wiki: reworking since renamed to BCCF

Discord: https://discord.gg/96wSZXQxqn

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/5CFmethod/

 

[BenChristman1]

@efattah you are gonna love this

5x5 CORNERS FIRST!

The method is called 5CF Method and it is of 6 steps.

1. Corners (duh)
2. White and Yello Centers (Dont mess up the corners)
3. 1 Layer -an edge pair
4. 3 but on other side
5. Edge Pairing
6. Roux LSE
7. Last 4 Centers (L4C)

This will have a thread of its own later today to make more sense. I think it has potential.

Please don’t make a new thread. Nothing is going to beat Yau and Redux, so you can just post it here, and if anybody (for some weird reason) wants to switch to it, they can go back and find it.

 

[MJS Cubing]

It's like petrus but with EO(Flip side cross) before 223 but after 222

It's easier to just make a cross on each side and solve the corners. I would guess most people would have an easier time making a cross and lining it up with the corners, unless the solve with petrus, then maybe you have a point.

 

[LukasCubes]

Please don’t make a new thread. Nothing is going to beat Yau and Redux, so you can just post it here, and if anybody (for some weird reason) wants to switch to it, they can go back and find it.

Alright, I am still making a new thread about it since other methods that arent the best (with the exception ZB) have their own discussion thread thing as well so I figured I might be able to do it too to make the method more well known. Right now the only 3 people that aint me have heard of the method dont know how to use it. My 9 year old cousin, Derpy Cuber, and Blobinati Central are the only other people to have heard of the method I think. They said they will learn it on a few conditions. Blobinati Central wants me to make a google docs which wont happen, Derpy Cuber wants me to get a sub-2 minute solve (2:41.481 is my 5CF PB), and My cousin dont know how to solve a 5x5.

 

[BenChristman1]

Alright, I am still making a new thread about it since other methods that arent the best (with the exception ZB) have their own discussion thread thing as well so I figured I might be able to do it too to make the method more well known. Right now the only 3 people that aint me have heard of the method dont know how to use it. My 9 year old cousin, Derpy Cuber, and Blobinati Central are the only other people to have heard of the method I think. They said they will learn it on a few conditions. Blobinati Central wants me to make a google docs which wont happen, Derpy Cuber wants me to get a sub-2 minute solve (2:41.481 is my 5CF PB), and My cousin dont know how to solve a 5x5.

Did you pressure Derpy on his stream to learn it, then he “gave in” just to get you to stop bugging him? And this method is bad. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, sometimes you just have to give up and try again. Also, do a couple hundred solves with a new method, and at least gen one or two sets of algs for it before you actually say something, just to see if it’s good or not.

 

[Jam88]

This didnt need a new threda. This is essentially a worse version of the abcube method

ABCube Method - Speedsolving.com Wiki

All links at bottom of that

 

[BenChristman1]

Firstly, there’s so many times where you will be messing up stuff that you’ve already solved (steps 3-6). You’ll then just have to solve it again later, which essentially turns it into a Redux-like method. Secondly, do you know how long the center comms at the end take? Forever. Anytime you use comms, the method is going to be really slow.

 

[LukasCubes]

Firstly, there’s so many times where you will be messing up stuff that you’ve already solved (steps 3-6). You’ll then just have to solve it again later, which essentially turns it into a Redux-like method. Secondly, do you know how long the center comms at the end take? Forever. Anytime you use comms, the method is going to be really slow.

well yeah thats how commutators and algorithms work, you mess up what you have for like 3 moves then you resolve them easily

 

[BenChristman1]

well yeah thats how commutators and algorithms work, you mess up what you have for like 3 moves then you resolve them easily

I’m pretty sure any PLL isn’t 5 moves long, and you still didn’t address that comms take forever, especially big cube center comms.

 

[Scollier]

I like any new idea and the creativity to create a whole new way of solving. It does not matter if the method is way worse than other methods, it is still interesting. You all are just shattering creativity.

 

[BenChristman1]

I like any new idea the the creativity to create a whole new way of solving. It does not matter if the method is way worse than other methods, it is still interesting. You all are just shattering creativity.

Why does the Wiki say that it’s meant for speedsolving, then? You can’t speedsolve with this method.