The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Deleted member 36445]

so i thought of a 3x3 method that i think would be very useful

1. You first make 2 1x2x3 blocks like in Roux
2. Solve CMLL
3. insert the remaining edge of the face that you made the 1x2x3 blocks with
4. you get less OLLs if you know full OLL

This method has been proposed before as the ski method of I'm not mistaken

 

[PapaSmurf]

That isn't skis, but it's not good. This is a variant of the method that has been proposed a bajillion times (Roux F2B, finish F2L, OLL, PLL). Use Roux or CFOP (or ZZ ), but don't use this.

 

[Thom S.]

Essentially the same Roux-CFOP hybrid that gets proposed over and over again. This time WITH CMLL

 

[Deleted member 36445]

oh sorry I misread the 1x2x3 part

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

That isn't skis, but it's not good. This is a variant of the method that has been proposed a bajillion times (Roux F2B, finish F2L, OLL, PLL). Use Roux or CFOP (or ZZ ), but don't use this.

ohh okay.. i thought this time i finally made a method..

 

[V Achyuthan]

So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.

What is RUBAR?

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

This time WITH CMLL

so i DID come up with something different.. ig

 

[Swagrid]

What is RUBAR?

One of few bandage reduction methods for 3x3.

 

[Thom S.]

so i DID come up with something different.. ig

Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with
42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2

 

[Cuber.Hello.com(:]

Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?

 

[Arcanist]

Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?

i don't think that's what he means and also https://jperm.net/algs/2look/oll

 

[Thom S.]

Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?

1. No
2. That's not what I meant. Read my post while actually paying attention

 

[Cuber.Hello.com(:]

1. No
2. That's not what I meant. Read my post while actually paying attention

oh. sorry.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

oh. sorry.

you're sorried

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with
42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2

ohh, so instead of OLL, you use ELL, makes sense!

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with
42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2

so can i claim ownership of this method?

 

[OreKehStrah]

so can i claim ownership of this method?

No because it's not new

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

No because it's not new

so Roux FB SB, CMLL, Last 2 Cross Edges, ELL (or OLL and PLL) has been proposed as a method now?

 

[OreKehStrah]

so Roux FB SB, CMLL, Last 2 Cross Edges, ELL (or OLL and PLL) has been proposed as a method now?

Yes this has been around over a decade. Just combining a couple random steps isn’t gonna produce a new method. The obvious things have been thought of over and over.
You need to find new steps/states and or new ways to reach them (that aren’t bad)

 

[hyn]

so can i claim ownership of this method?

dont forget to patent it