Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sorry, but an LL time of 6-7 seconds really doesn't convince anyone of this being a good method yet; considering typical CFOP LLs take less than 2-3 seconds at the highest level. The reason your method has been ignored for "years" might be because it isn't good. If you work to change that and make it better, we might consider it rather than if you post the same thread multiple times about the same concept, which is effectively just spam.I take 6-7 seconds
My TPS is low.I'm sorry, but an LL time of 6-7 seconds really doesn't convince anyone of this being a good method yet; considering typical CFOP LLs take less than 2-3 seconds at the highest level. The reason your method has been ignored for "years" might be because it isn't good. If you work to change that and make it better, we might consider it rather than if you post the same thread multiple times about the same concept, which is effectively just spam.
Yes, but my point is that we would need to see how this LL method performs at a higher level, where recognition must be done much faster and worse algs can't just be made up for with "slow TPS". I could pick up a cube right now and solve with ZZ, Roux, or Petrus in 30 seconds; if my CFOP also took 30 seconds I could make the argument that all the methods are equally good but 30 seconds is nowhere near the potential speed of these methods, it would be wrong to compare them now.My TPS is low.
If I use OLL and PLL make 6-7 seconds.
In second step:It is hard to understand for me and it also it seems to be ineffective. oll and pll are better. Just my opinion tho
I use Cross F2L and plat.Yes, but my point is that we would need to see how this LL method performs at a higher level, where recognition must be done much faster and worse algs can't just be made up for with "slow TPS". I could pick up a cube right now and solve with ZZ, Roux, or Petrus in 30 seconds; if my CFOP also took 30 seconds I could make the argument that all the methods are equally good but 30 seconds is nowhere near the potential speed of these methods, it would be wrong to compare them now.
Step 1 is definitely worse than OLL and step 2 is probably worse than PLL.I don't understand why years ago you didn't consider it a good method.
I take 6-7 seconds.
is a sub-method of the last layer called Platform.
Step 2:Step 1 is definitely worse than OLL and step 2 is probably worse than PLL.
if you say so you don't know there are pll cases Ja,Jb,Ua,Ub,F.Step 1 is definitely worse than OLL and step 2 is probably worse than PLL.
I'm fully aware that Ja,Jb,Ua,Ub,F fall into the category of 113 solved LL. Yes, there is some intersection. The issue is that there are many other cases than that in 113 LL that are bad. I am positive that PLL as a set is better than 113 LL as a set.if you say so you don't know there are pll cases Ja,Jb,Ua,Ub,F.
There would have to be a revision of the algorithms to make them more optimal.The problem with this method is no one has proved it to be effective. Pll and Oll on the other hand are used by many top cubers around the world, with maybe a bit of subsets like WV. If the method was comparable, at least some people would use it for last layer. (kinda like cfop vs roux)
however it is normal that it is so because no one is ever really interested.The problem with this method is no one has proved it to be effective. Pll and Oll on the other hand are used by many top cubers around the world, with maybe a bit of subsets like WV. If the method was comparable, at least some people would use it for last layer. (kinda like cfop vs roux)
Cases Line are 71.I'm fully aware that Ja,Jb,Ua,Ub,F fall into the category of 113 solved LL. Yes, there is some intersection. The issue is that there are many other cases than that in 113 LL that are bad. I am positive that PLL as a set is better than 113 LL as a set.
Fortunately for the step one it is not necessary to catalog all the existing cases.This seems to me far more complicated and less effective than just learning 4LLL. I’m not sure the total alg count, but it looks like it’s nearing the amount of 3LLL with full PLL
Example:This seems to me far more complicated and less effective than just learning 4LLL. I’m not sure the total alg count, but it looks like it’s nearing the amount of 3LLL with full PLL
Example:
With this Algo can solve a case OLL or 4 cases for create a case Line.