Waffles
Member
Over COVID I actually earnt a little money making discord server for people, never got scammed once.
-
Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!
You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.
Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.
Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.
Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
Full LMCF 3x3 method now available
- Thread starter efattah
- Start date
LukasCubes
Member
You lucky lol I know nobody personally that has discord unless its a secret lol
Melkor
Member
Efattah is talking about the future of LMCF in that server, and some interesting developments in the works, so if that interests you, come and check it out!
I've been trying to learn the E2l algorithms, and the ones in the set "Solve DF->UR while simultaneously solving UR - UR Oriented" don't work, could someone confirm, or guide me to where the correct algs are please? (I'm reading the Rev 4.5 .pdf)
Cheers!
Cheers!
SomeRandomZZUser
Member
the link has expired
Is anyone using this method (main or not) ? I'm no speed expert, but I know about a dozen ways to solve a cube, usually in about a minute - and this is my current favorite. My main think is I do this for fun, so I don't really do any sort of pre-inspection. That makes Roux hard because it takes me so long to hunt for pieces. Likewise, in CFOP I know lots of F2L pair & insertion.. but I still have that dang pause trying to find the 2 matching pieces. With this method I'm not having much pausing at all (which is why I like it).
I'm working on the 8 algs for finishing the last edge & orientation.. but the problem I hit is that they are all so similar that they blend in my head more then other alg sets. Any tips or intuitive-ness that I'm missing on it?
Finally - solving 3 edges at once in the E2L step: Is there a vid showing this in a lot more detail?
I'm working on the 8 algs for finishing the last edge & orientation.. but the problem I hit is that they are all so similar that they blend in my head more then other alg sets. Any tips or intuitive-ness that I'm missing on it?
Finally - solving 3 edges at once in the E2L step: Is there a vid showing this in a lot more detail?
LukasCubes
Member
14+ month bump
I use Waterman, which uses a lot of algs from LMCF.
LMCF/Waterman L5E, there are 36 Algorithms. Basically 10, not counting reflections. I probably could make a video on breaking the algs into intuitive parts, which is how I learn all of my algs (301/337 L6E learned).
There is not a video, nor are there that many algorithms yet other than Eric's LMCF document, which I'm sure will be updated soon, giving how active Eric has been on discord lately. I don't know if he would make a video on it. I probably couldn't because I don't know nearly enough algs to solve 3 pieces at once.
I do have an (old) LMCF tutorial video on youtube, but the method has changed a great deal in the last 7 years. Plus, there are fairly major differences between the LMCF beginner method and the advanced/full method.
I finally am starting to have some spare time after years of craziness. I hope to compile the hundreds of new algorithms & improved algorithms I've developed and also update the document on other improvements.
The main goal is to improve ergonomics & decrease rotations, vs. the original LMCF method. This is achieved primarily by expanding the transition phase to solve more pieces on this step, adding URE & ULE 3-gen algs which are surprisingly ergonomic if designed properly. By solving 4 edges during the transition phase, making an effort to put an H on the top & bottom of the cube, then after the rotation, the cube can be completed with UMD moves or in other cases the final 8 edges are fixed at UL-UR, FL-FR making inspection easy.
Also the way of solving edges during the transition phase is unbelievably efficient as you maximize luck, while you solve a transition triplet about half the time you accidentally solve a 4th edge and get a free quadruplet for something like 8-9 moves total.
Roux, advanced CFOP & ZBRoux are extremely hard to improve upon. At times I thought LMCF had no chance of even approaching them. But two things changed my mind, the first being that the record for 2x2 is now well under 1 second (which is the first step in LMCF); second, the drastically improved transition phase which can solve 4 edges in 8-10 moves and good ergonomics, and lastly, drastically improved algorithms for pair & triplet solving in the final E2L phase.
There is yet another fairly dramatic change that can be made in LMCF and also applies to Waterman. The idea is that after 1 edge is solved on the R layer, you push in the last 3 edges into the R layer in random locations & orientations in a single algorithm of which there are very few cases. Then, you have a sort of sub-case of ELL on the right side. There are 6 possible permutations of these three edges and 8 possible orientation cases or 48 cases total. Then in the M slice there is either 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 misoriented edges that have 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 cases. Even if you take the average number of midge orientation cases as 2, then you could solve the entire R slice and simultaneously orient the midges in around 96 algorithms, not bad at all and I believe these would be ergonomic algorithms primarily RrUM. This method actually greatly decreases the number of algorithms vs. common waterman or LMCF while maintaining the same, or even better, speed, as the bad case of lots of midges in the ring is eliminated in a single algorithm.
In the end I firmly believe a world class solver can get a global average of 6.0 seconds with LMCF or Waterman. To get much better than that requires further improvements which are certainly possible.
I finally am starting to have some spare time after years of craziness. I hope to compile the hundreds of new algorithms & improved algorithms I've developed and also update the document on other improvements.
The main goal is to improve ergonomics & decrease rotations, vs. the original LMCF method. This is achieved primarily by expanding the transition phase to solve more pieces on this step, adding URE & ULE 3-gen algs which are surprisingly ergonomic if designed properly. By solving 4 edges during the transition phase, making an effort to put an H on the top & bottom of the cube, then after the rotation, the cube can be completed with UMD moves or in other cases the final 8 edges are fixed at UL-UR, FL-FR making inspection easy.
Also the way of solving edges during the transition phase is unbelievably efficient as you maximize luck, while you solve a transition triplet about half the time you accidentally solve a 4th edge and get a free quadruplet for something like 8-9 moves total.
Roux, advanced CFOP & ZBRoux are extremely hard to improve upon. At times I thought LMCF had no chance of even approaching them. But two things changed my mind, the first being that the record for 2x2 is now well under 1 second (which is the first step in LMCF); second, the drastically improved transition phase which can solve 4 edges in 8-10 moves and good ergonomics, and lastly, drastically improved algorithms for pair & triplet solving in the final E2L phase.
There is yet another fairly dramatic change that can be made in LMCF and also applies to Waterman. The idea is that after 1 edge is solved on the R layer, you push in the last 3 edges into the R layer in random locations & orientations in a single algorithm of which there are very few cases. Then, you have a sort of sub-case of ELL on the right side. There are 6 possible permutations of these three edges and 8 possible orientation cases or 48 cases total. Then in the M slice there is either 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 misoriented edges that have 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 cases. Even if you take the average number of midge orientation cases as 2, then you could solve the entire R slice and simultaneously orient the midges in around 96 algorithms, not bad at all and I believe these would be ergonomic algorithms primarily RrUM. This method actually greatly decreases the number of algorithms vs. common waterman or LMCF while maintaining the same, or even better, speed, as the bad case of lots of midges in the ring is eliminated in a single algorithm.
In the end I firmly believe a world class solver can get a global average of 6.0 seconds with LMCF or Waterman. To get much better than that requires further improvements which are certainly possible.
LukasCubes
Member
So what I'm getting from this paragraph.
Waterman Layer
CLL
In 1 Alg, Solve a redge and finish the Waterman layer
In 1 alg, push the remaining three redges into the R-Layer in random orientations/permutations
ELL + Orient Midges
Permute Midges
Idk how much of this is generated, but I'm gonna try to generate some of it.
tbh, I like this idea. Not too many algs, still probably efficient, I think this has potential.
Yes this is correct.
Since you push the remaining redges into the R layer, you can watch the cube move as you do so, so you should already know the ELL case before you even finish and therefore the last and only thing is to observe the orientation of the midges and their location. For a pro, there should essentially be no recognition delay, to figure out which ELL case to use.
Since all the edges in the R layer, the number of cases is much reduced vs. standard waterman L6E which has a redge in the ring. Because with no redge in the ring, you can adjust the M slice to put the disoriented midges in the correct location, reducing the number of cases.
Since you push the remaining redges into the R layer, you can watch the cube move as you do so, so you should already know the ELL case before you even finish and therefore the last and only thing is to observe the orientation of the midges and their location. For a pro, there should essentially be no recognition delay, to figure out which ELL case to use.
Since all the edges in the R layer, the number of cases is much reduced vs. standard waterman L6E which has a redge in the ring. Because with no redge in the ring, you can adjust the M slice to put the disoriented midges in the correct location, reducing the number of cases.
42isgoatmethod
Member
@efattah I love the vibe of corners first. but the ergonomics, rotations, and alg count have always discouraged be from learning it. So I decided to come up with something similar.
1. Roux first block
2.Transition(orient and place white corners in the they're spots, they don't need to be permuted)
3. CMLL or EG1(modified)
4.some weird triplet alg to solve the Second block Edges (not genned)
5. LSE
I estimated as the move count to be around 40.
1. Roux first block
2.Transition(orient and place white corners in the they're spots, they don't need to be permuted)
3. CMLL or EG1(modified)
4.some weird triplet alg to solve the Second block Edges (not genned)
5. LSE
I estimated as the move count to be around 40.
You are basically describing WaterRoux. In the highest form of WaterRoux you solve Roux first block and ALL the corners in a single look, using either LEG-1, L5C, or CMLL. It is well known that it is possible to one look all of that at once but there hasn't been enough interest for a top 2x2-3x3 cuber to actually attempt it. If I come into more money at some point I would like to post a $500 prize for the first person to one look the first step of WaterRoux on cam for an Ao5, solving first block & corners in under 2 seconds average. Once you get past that first stage, most triplet algorithms will solve the UL edge and two edges on the R face, which leaves last-six-edges in the form of Waterman L6E which has essentially the same move count & speed as Roux LSE.
WaterRoux fixes a major problem in Roux, which is doing CMLL recognition mid solve. In WaterRoux the recognition time is moved into the inspection time and there is no major algorithm to recognize mid solve. If you can do the first stage in 1-look under 2.00 seconds, the triplet alg takes less than 1 second, and Waterman L6E about 1.30 seconds, which gives you a 4.30 Ao100 for top cubers.
42isgoatmethod
Member
@efattah thank you. and I understand this now
I also am wondering what the best method would be for solving the Last 5 corners. I have looked at Cxll, TCMLL and just L5C. and I am still wondering what the best one would be overall. Also can you send me the ERL algs
I also am wondering what the best method would be for solving the Last 5 corners. I have looked at Cxll, TCMLL and just L5C. and I am still wondering what the best one would be overall. Also can you send me the ERL algs
Last edited:
