• 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!
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
44
Location
Vietnam
Hello, I'm was made this method one month ago, this a 4x4 method for the ZZ method.
Some think ZZ44 is better than 4Z4 but I'm not.
I think ZZ44 and 4Z4 are the same.

And I'm very sorry PaPa Smurf cubes because spam his page. :(:(:(


Link ZZ44: ZZ44 method inf0

How about you😀😀😀
 
Last edited:

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
448
Location
India
WCA
2022SUND04
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
Here are the steps
1. 222 + 223
2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
3. solve D layer corners using one alg (can use DCAL or a maybe new algs can be generated since BR edge isn't solved leading to lower movecount)
4. (do a y rotation placing the 223 on the back) EO in one alg
5. solve DF and the current FR (current FR is the previous step's BR) using one algorithm
6. ZBLL (which is also one alg)

Here are some examples
1. F' D L U R2 D L2 F2 L2 F2 D' B2 R2 U2 R B F R B2 L2 R
z2 U R2 U2 F' L B2 // 222
F' R2 F2 R' F2 // 223
R U' R // FR1
U R' U' R // Corners of D layer
y R' F' U' F U R // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2
U2 L' U R U' L U' R D R' U2 R D' R2 // ZBLL
45 STM

2. F U' D' R' B2 L' F' L' U D2 F' B U2 D2 F L2 B' D2 F R2 U2
z2 D' L U' F' L2 // 222
R U' L F L' R' F2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U' R' U2 R' U' R U2 R // Corners of D layer
y M' U R U M U' R' // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2
R U2 L' U R' U' R U R' U' R L U2 R' U' // ZBLL
51 STM
45 with cancellations

3. B2 R D2 R' D2 F2 D2 F2 R' F2 R2 B2 D' L2 U2 B' L B D R2
z2 D2 U F2 R D2 // 222
U' R' U R B2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U R' U' R' U' R U R // Corners of D layer
y M' U' R U M U' R' // EO
U2 M2 R U M2 U M U2 M' R' // DF and FR2
U2 M' U2 y R' U2 R U2 F l U' z' U // ZBLL
48 STM

Let me know your thoughts on this
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,727
Location
A mythical land filled with talking Ducks
WCA
2022MCCO11
This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
Here are the steps
1. 222 + 223
2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
3. solve D layer corners using one alg (can use DCAL or a maybe new algs can be generated since BR edge isn't solved leading to lower movecount)
4. (do a y rotation placing the 223 on the back) EO in one alg
5. solve DF and the current FR (current FR is the previous step's BR) using one algorithm
6. ZBLL (which is also one alg)

This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?
 

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
448
Location
India
WCA
2022SUND04
YouTube
Visit Channel
This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?
TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.
 

PiKeeper

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
374
Location
Virginia
WCA
2021KLIN02
TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.
You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.
 

PiKeeper

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
374
Location
Virginia
WCA
2021KLIN02
Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.
That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.
 

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
448
Location
India
WCA
2022SUND04
YouTube
Visit Channel
That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.
ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?
 

PiKeeper

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
374
Location
Virginia
WCA
2021KLIN02
ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?
Chill out. You wanted my thoughts on this method, I gave you my thoughts. Also if you want to claim that your method is five steps, Mehta-TDR is four steps.
 

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
448
Location
India
WCA
2022SUND04
YouTube
Visit Channel
FB+3QB would be considered one step. It's literally the first step of your method
ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
1,103
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
No one was arguing, you turned it into an argument. If you really feel so defensive about your method that no one can criticise it, you are way too emotionally attached to it. It's great that people are coming up with new ideas, but very very very rarely are they good or genuinely new. Take the criticism and either improve the method or move on.
 
Top