road to creating my own super duper unique method!

Joined
Jul 19, 2024
Messages
6,022
WCA ID
2022VALE15
This is like my 4th progression thread and i don’t feel so good about it but i created this thread anyway because it is totally unique compared to the other ones (say that as fast as you can).

I’m gonna be trying to create my own method so here we go!

Method/s Created: 1
Method/s Created that already exist: 1 (i just recreated Nautilus😎😎)
Method/s Created that already exist but i just switched the steps: 2
 
Last edited:
Nautilus but reinventedby caleb
Step 1: solve 1x2x3 block on the left
Step 2: make 2x2 block in the back right (D layer)
Step 3: form final F2L pair
Step 4: orient edges and permutecorners while solving F2L pair
Step 5: solve cube with M and U moves
 
ok so here's a method i came up with
step 1: use domino reduction to turn the cube into an "oriented state" ( see this https://www.cubinghistory.com/3x3/MethodShapes#oriented-state)
step 2: solve the E layer intuitively (looks like a belt)
step 3: solve top or bottom face
step 4: permute and solve both top and bottom faces with one algorithm

it's sort of like square 101 but different. It's more like Square-1 but on a 3x3 than Square 101. I still need to research some more about DR (domino reduction) @BVCuber13 help please FMC goat
Square 101: https://www.cubinghistory.com/3x3/Methods/Square101
 
ok so here's a method i came up with
step 1: use domino reduction to turn the cube into an "oriented state" ( see this https://www.cubinghistory.com/3x3/MethodShapes#oriented-state)
step 2: solve the E layer intuitively (looks like a belt)
step 3: solve top or bottom face
step 4: permute and solve both top and bottom faces with one algorithm

it's sort of like square 101 but different. It's more like Square-1 but on a 3x3 than Square 101. I still need to research some more about DR (domino reduction) @BVCuber13 help please FMC goat
Square 101: https://www.cubinghistory.com/3x3/Methods/Square101
This is basically just the belt method but swapping the first and second steps lmao 🤣
 
how to make a method notes:


---

## 🧠 **Method Development Life Cycle – Summary**

**By James Straughan**

### 🔹 Introduction

Method development in cubing is the process of creating a solving method that fits human limitations. Since humans can’t memorize and instantly apply a solution to all 43 quintillion cube states, we must develop practical strategies that balance:

* **Move count**
* **Recognition**
* **Ergonomics**
* **Algorithm load**

Creating a new, competitive method takes experience and deep understanding—not just fast solving. This guide walks you through all stages of method development.

---

### 💡 1. Ideation

Every method starts with an idea. It might be:

* A new **method shape**
* A way to solve an existing **problem**
* A combination of steps from known methods (though this rarely succeeds on its own)

To make something truly new:

* **Don’t just change the order of solving pieces.**
* Try solving core problems or inventing **new concepts** (e.g. *Method 42* uses conjugation to reduce algorithm count).

Before continuing, **research** if your idea already exists:

* **SpeedSolving.com** (Wiki + forums)
* **Cubing History**
* **Discord servers** for method discussion

Watch out for commonly reinvented methods like:

* **Belt**
* **RouxFOP**
* **ZBRoux**
* **Non-EO Petrus**

---

### 🧩 2. Design

Now define the **step-by-step plan** of your method. Test many options:

* Can you borrow useful steps from other methods?
* Try multiple variants of solving edges, corners, etc.
* Ensure steps logically flow from your base idea or problem you're solving.

Design isn’t just building from scratch—it’s exploring *every possible path*, even abstract or unusual ones.

---

### 📊 3. Analysis

This phase tests the potential of your method:

* **Measure efficiency**: average move count, lookahead, ergonomics.
* **Compare** with current top methods.
* **Identify weaknesses**, like difficult recognition or poor transitions between steps.

Try hand-solving with your method and gather initial impressions. Early testing helps refine your step choices and prepares for deeper development.

---

### 🛠️ 4. Development

Build out your method:

* Create and refine **algorithms** for each step.
* Develop **multiple options** for different cases (e.g. alternate algs for one-handed use).
* Test **intensively**: time solves, collect feedback, analyze move counts.

If a step feels awkward or inefficient, return to design or even ideation. Be flexible—methods evolve as you work on them.

---

### 📢 5. Publication

When your method is solid:

* **Document it** clearly: write a tutorial, create example solves.
* Share it via forums, Discord, videos, or cubing websites.
* Choose a name (avoid duplicates), and make your method easy to learn.

Good documentation helps others try it and give feedback—which could improve it even more.

---

### 🔄 6. Maintenance

Once published, maintain the method:

* **Update algs** if better ones are found.
* Answer questions and improve tutorials.
* Track community feedback and adjust accordingly.

Some methods fade away due to lack of support. Others become popular because their creators engage and keep refining.

---

### 🔮 7. The Future of Methods

There’s still room for innovation. New hardware, solving styles (like OH or feet), or even twisty puzzle types can inspire new methods. Focus on **problem-solving and creativity**, not just move-count optimization.

> 💬 “Any method distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.” — Joseph Briggs

-

i asked chatgpt to summarize it so that i can focus on making a method and not writing down notes lol
 
how to make a method notes:


---

## 🧠 **Method Development Life Cycle – Summary**

**By James Straughan**

### 🔹 Introduction

Method development in cubing is the process of creating a solving method that fits human limitations. Since humans can’t memorize and instantly apply a solution to all 43 quintillion cube states, we must develop practical strategies that balance:

* **Move count**
* **Recognition**
* **Ergonomics**
* **Algorithm load**

Creating a new, competitive method takes experience and deep understanding—not just fast solving. This guide walks you through all stages of method development.

---

### 💡 1. Ideation

Every method starts with an idea. It might be:

* A new **method shape**
* A way to solve an existing **problem**
* A combination of steps from known methods (though this rarely succeeds on its own)

To make something truly new:

* **Don’t just change the order of solving pieces.**
* Try solving core problems or inventing **new concepts** (e.g. *Method 42* uses conjugation to reduce algorithm count).

Before continuing, **research** if your idea already exists:

* **SpeedSolving.com** (Wiki + forums)
* **Cubing History**
* **Discord servers** for method discussion

Watch out for commonly reinvented methods like:

* **Belt**
* **RouxFOP**
* **ZBRoux**
* **Non-EO Petrus**

---

### 🧩 2. Design

Now define the **step-by-step plan** of your method. Test many options:

* Can you borrow useful steps from other methods?
* Try multiple variants of solving edges, corners, etc.
* Ensure steps logically flow from your base idea or problem you're solving.

Design isn’t just building from scratch—it’s exploring *every possible path*, even abstract or unusual ones.

---

### 📊 3. Analysis

This phase tests the potential of your method:

* **Measure efficiency**: average move count, lookahead, ergonomics.
* **Compare** with current top methods.
* **Identify weaknesses**, like difficult recognition or poor transitions between steps.

Try hand-solving with your method and gather initial impressions. Early testing helps refine your step choices and prepares for deeper development.

---

### 🛠️ 4. Development

Build out your method:

* Create and refine **algorithms** for each step.
* Develop **multiple options** for different cases (e.g. alternate algs for one-handed use).
* Test **intensively**: time solves, collect feedback, analyze move counts.

If a step feels awkward or inefficient, return to design or even ideation. Be flexible—methods evolve as you work on them.

---

### 📢 5. Publication

When your method is solid:

* **Document it** clearly: write a tutorial, create example solves.
* Share it via forums, Discord, videos, or cubing websites.
* Choose a name (avoid duplicates), and make your method easy to learn.

Good documentation helps others try it and give feedback—which could improve it even more.

---

### 🔄 6. Maintenance

Once published, maintain the method:

* **Update algs** if better ones are found.
* Answer questions and improve tutorials.
* Track community feedback and adjust accordingly.

Some methods fade away due to lack of support. Others become popular because their creators engage and keep refining.

---

### 🔮 7. The Future of Methods

There’s still room for innovation. New hardware, solving styles (like OH or feet), or even twisty puzzle types can inspire new methods. Focus on **problem-solving and creativity**, not just move-count optimization.

> 💬 “Any method distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.” — Joseph Briggs

-

i asked chatgpt to summarize it so that i can focus on making a method and not writing down notes lol
That's really cool
 
came up with another method today, it involves:
solving a line on the bottom of the M layer (like ZZ)
doing EOPair from APB on the left side of the cube to solve some of the EO
LXS on the left to solve the 2x2x3
doing EOPair on the right to solve some more of the EO
LXS on the right to complete F2L
ZBLL

but it turns out this might just be ZZ-F (also known now as ZZ-D).
 
came up with another method today, it involves:
solving a line on the bottom of the M layer (like ZZ)
doing EOPair from APB on the left side of the cube to solve some of the EO
LXS on the left to solve the 2x2x3
doing EOPair on the right to solve some more of the EO
LXS on the right to complete F2L
ZBLL

but it turns out this might just be ZZ-F (also known now as ZZ-D).
Here's a tip, if you want your methods to be more practical, you can learn some FMC tricks
 
Yo yo yo im tryna make a 4x4 method rn and like its alot harder to make a 3x3 method as there are so many now so like if you want we could try make a 4x4 method together ?
Its probably harder since you havent made any method yet BUT theres less of a chance its already been made PLUS theres a higher chance its not a bad method (theres still room for improvement in 4x4 methods)
 
Yo yo yo im tryna make a 4x4 method rn and like its alot harder to make a 3x3 method as there are so many now so like if you want we could try make a 4x4 method together ?
Its probably harder since you havent made any method yet BUT theres less of a chance its already been made PLUS theres a higher chance its not a bad method (theres still room for improvement in 4x4 methods)
sure let's do that
 
Yo yo yo im tryna make a 4x4 method rn and like its alot harder to make a 3x3 method as there are so many now so like if you want we could try make a 4x4 method together ?
Its probably harder since you havent made any method yet BUT theres less of a chance its already been made PLUS theres a higher chance its not a bad method (theres still room for improvement in 4x4 methods)
i made something for 4x4:
step 1: solve 2x2x4 on the dL layer
step 2: solve the front, left, and back centers
step 3: finish solving the 3x3x4 on the left
step 4: finish solving the last two centers
step 5: finish edge pairing
step 6: solve the rest of the cube

i already came up with some optimizations
 
i made something for 4x4:
step 1: solve 2x2x4 on the dL layer
step 2: solve the front, left, and back centers
step 3: finish solving the 3x3x4 on the left
step 4: finish solving the last two centers
step 5: finish edge pairing
step 6: solve the rest of the cube

i already came up with some optimizations
ok i tried out some stuff to have a more straight forward method to get to 3x3x4 (the main shape of this method). Here it is:
step 1: Solve 1x3x4 on the left with half of the bottom center solved.
step 2: Expand to 2x3x4 using F3L.
step 3: Solve the bottom center and expand into 3x3x4 using F3L techniques.
step 4: do a y move and solve the L2C (Last 2 Centers)
step 5: solve L7E (Last 7 Edges)
Step 6: solve LL

Comparison to old version:
Simpler and is more straight forward.
No need to keep switching between centers and edges.
It is easier to expand from a 1x3x4 block than a 2x2x3 block

Pros:
Easy look ahead during F3L.
Efficiency is optimized because of block-building
Minimal rotations (2-3 rotations)
Excellent lookahead during L7E
Cons:
Trickier to learn than methods like Yau and Hoya
Step 3 can have bad ergonomics because of the places the half center can be in.

Potential Modifications (to be tested)
OPA
Solving EO during step 4 (not sure if possible)

looking to name this method the CV4 (Caleb Valenzuela's 4x4x4) method or the CVB (Caleb Valenzuela's Block). Any ideas? Currently in the "Design" phase of this method. The Pros and Cons are not complete yet.
 
ok i tried out some stuff to have a more straight forward method to get to 3x3x4 (the main shape of this method). Here it is:
step 1: Solve 1x3x4 on the left with half of the bottom center solved.
step 2: Expand to 2x3x4 using F3L.
step 3: Solve the bottom center and expand into 3x3x4 using F3L techniques.
step 4: do a y move and solve the L2C (Last 2 Centers)
step 5: solve L7E (Last 7 Edges)
Step 6: solve LL

Comparison to old version:
Simpler and is more straight forward.
No need to keep switching between centers and edges.
It is easier to expand from a 1x3x4 block than a 2x2x3 block

Pros:
Easy look ahead during F3L.
Efficiency is optimized because of block-building
Minimal rotations (2-3 rotations)
Excellent lookahead during L7E
Cons:
Trickier to learn than methods like Yau and Hoya
Step 3 can have bad ergonomics because of the places the half center can be in.

Potential Modifications (to be tested)
OPA
Solving EO during step 4 (not sure if possible)

looking to name this method the CV4 (Caleb Valenzuela's 4x4x4) method or the CVB (Caleb Valenzuela's Block). Any ideas? Currently in the "Design" phase of this method. The Pros and Cons are not complete yet.
Alr ima try this out.

Its good im ngl (not gonna main tho)
OPA is easy to add cause all you have to do is make the full bottom center whilst making the 1x3x4 (idk if yk OPA but all you have to do is make 2 adjacent centers whilst ensuring its in even parity or odd parity i forgot)

Adding EO is possible, but youd need to first recognise whether each edge had 1+ wing that is Oriented then you have to pair them whilst preserving the EO or doing EO for completely bad edges.

For L2C its better to do F3L techniques again as it lowers the amount of edges you need to pair and orient whilst solving the bottom edge.
 
Alr ima try this out.

Its good im ngl (not gonna main tho)
OPA is easy to add cause all you have to do is make the full bottom center whilst making the 1x3x4 (idk if yk OPA but all you have to do is make 2 adjacent centers whilst ensuring its in even parity or odd parity i forgot)

Adding EO is possible, but youd need to first recognise whether each edge had 1+ wing that is Oriented then you have to pair them whilst preserving the EO or doing EO for completely bad edges.

For L2C its better to do F3L techniques again as it lowers the amount of edges you need to pair and orient whilst solving the bottom edge.
thanks! I will take those into consideration.
 
ok i tried out some stuff to have a more straight forward method to get to 3x3x4 (the main shape of this method). Here it is:
step 1: Solve 1x3x4 on the left with half of the bottom center solved.
step 2: Expand to 2x3x4 using F3L.
step 3: Solve the bottom center and expand into 3x3x4 using F3L techniques.
step 4: do a y move and solve the L2C (Last 2 Centers)
step 5: solve L7E (Last 7 Edges)
Step 6: solve LL

Comparison to old version:
Simpler and is more straight forward.
No need to keep switching between centers and edges.
It is easier to expand from a 1x3x4 block than a 2x2x3 block

Pros:
Easy look ahead during F3L.
Efficiency is optimized because of block-building
Minimal rotations (2-3 rotations)
Excellent lookahead during L7E
Cons:
Trickier to learn than methods like Yau and Hoya
Step 3 can have bad ergonomics because of the places the half center can be in.

Potential Modifications (to be tested)
OPA
Solving EO during step 4 (not sure if possible)

looking to name this method the CV4 (Caleb Valenzuela's 4x4x4) method or the CVB (Caleb Valenzuela's Block). Any ideas? Currently in the "Design" phase of this method. The Pros and Cons are not complete yet.
Looks similar to OBLBL
 
Back
Top