The Orcuber's Hunt For The Best 3x3 Method

[Michael Wimberly]

I forgot which letter had an acute accent

the N

 

[acrystal]

the N

whats an acute accent btw?

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

here’s some trends i’ve been seeing from some of the methods on the SS wiki:
1.) Blockbuilding usually leads to an efficient solution (<50 moves). Methods like CEOR, 42, and APB use a block building approach. CEOR turns into full RrUu gen after EO and DFDB. 42 uses a Roux approach with a 1x2x3 on the left and a 1x2x2 in BR. It also has some unique conjugation approach for CMLL. And APB is self-explanatory with the amount of times i’ve talked about it already
2.) LBL approaches (like CFOP, ZB, CFCE) are TPS spammable but less efficient overall.

So I feel like we should do a block building/LBL hybrid, which is kinda what CEOR and APB do. I do have a grip of an idea, but I’m checking to see if it actually has potential or not

 

[Michael Wimberly]

whats an acute accent btw?

The little tick mark above a letter, specifically the one with the left end down and the right end up, like "é"

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

I FINALLY HAVE AN IDEA
Step 1: solve a 1x2x3 on the left
Step 2: solve the DB edge
Step 3: solve a 1x2x2 at BR
Step 4: do EO+CP (don’t know the purpose of CP yet but CEOR uses it, maybe it influenced a 2GLL case)
Step 5: solve the DF edge and and the FR pair in one alg (this is the key step of this method)
Step 6: ZBLL

You could also do:
Step 1: solve 223 on the left
Step 2: solve the FR pair
Step 3: do a y rotation and do CP + EO (oof y rotation is kinda bad)
Step 4: DF edge+FR pair
Step 5: ZBLL

@CrossPetrus could you please check how many algs it would take for CP+EO and DF edge + FR pair? Thanks a lot

 

[CrossPetrus]

I FINALLY HAVE AN IDEA
Step 1: solve a 1x2x3 on the left
Step 2: solve the DB edge
Step 3: solve a 1x2x2 at BR
Step 4: do EO+CP (don’t know the purpose of CP yet but CEOR uses it, maybe it influenced a 2GLL case)
Step 5: solve the DF edge and and the FR pair in one alg (this is the key step of this method)
Step 6: ZBLL

You could also do:
Step 1: solve 223 on the left
Step 2: solve the FR pair
Step 3: do a y rotation and do CP + EO (oof y rotation is kinda bad)
Step 4: DF edge+FR pair
Step 5: ZBLL

@CrossPetrus could you please check how many algs it would take for CP+EO and DF edge + FR pair? Thanks a lot

This seems like a Nautilus variant.

 

[acrystal]

This seems like a Nautilus variant.

i agree, i thought this was a worse variant of Nautilis

 

[AJT17]

I FINALLY HAVE AN IDEA
Step 1: solve a 1x2x3 on the left
Step 2: solve the DB edge
Step 3: solve a 1x2x2 at BR
Step 4: do EO+CP (don’t know the purpose of CP yet but CEOR uses it, maybe it influenced a 2GLL case)
Step 5: solve the DF edge and and the FR pair in one alg (this is the key step of this method)
Step 6: ZBLL

You could also do:
Step 1: solve 223 on the left
Step 2: solve the FR pair
Step 3: do a y rotation and do CP + EO (oof y rotation is kinda bad)
Step 4: DF edge+FR pair
Step 5: ZBLL

@CrossPetrus could you please check how many algs it would take for CP+EO and DF edge + FR pair? Thanks a lot

Yeah, this is pretty much a worse version of CPNautilus. Having to do both EO and CP in one step/alg is significantly worse than just doing CPFB then EO later in the solve. But CEOR and, to some extent, CPNautilus are not great methods for 2H because of the moves you need to make to preserve CP. Since it only saves a few moves, you're better off not doing it and sticking with RUF/RUD ZBLL algs, which are much more ergonomic for 2H solving.

Also, the point of solving CP is to reduce the cube so it can be solved using only RrUu and slice moves. It basically relies on solving the corner permutation at the very start, then doing specific moves that don't mess it up, in order to solve EO and DFDB, commonly referred to as EOStripe. If you were to do F/D/B moves, that would mess up CP, but the moves I mentioned earlier do not affect CP. So, for CEOR, you're left with only RU turns for the last section of the solve. When you solve the Right Block in whatever way you want, then you're left with 2GLL, which are the ZBLL's that have solved CP and only need RU turns to be solved, of which there are only 84 algs.

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

i agree, i thought this was a worse variant of Nautilis

*cough cough says the one who thinks VLS+PLL is better than ZBLS+ZBLL /j

Yeah, this is pretty much a worse version of CPNautilus. Having to do both EO and CP in one step/alg is significantly worse than just doing CPFB then EO later in the solve. But CEOR and, to some extent, CPNautilus are not great methods for 2H because of the moves you need to make to preserve CP. Since it only saves a few moves, you're better off not doing it and sticking with RUF/RUD ZBLL algs, which are much more ergonomic for 2H solving.

Also, the point of solving CP is to reduce the cube so it can be solved using only RrUu and slice moves. It basically relies on solving the corner permutation at the very start, then doing specific moves that don't mess it up, in order to solve EO and DFDB, commonly referred to as EOStripe. If you were to do F/D/B moves, that would mess up CP, but the moves I mentioned earlier do not affect CP. So, for CEOR, you're left with only RU turns for the last section of the solve. When you solve the Right Block in whatever way you want, then you're left with 2GLL, which are the ZBLL's that have solved CP and only need RU turns to be solved, of which there are only 84 algs.

oh well
it was worth trying ig
thanks for explaining the purpose of CP

 

[acrystal]

*cough cough says the one who thinks VLS+PLL is better than ZBLS+ZBLL /j

it has less algs, plus u might already know pll so it reduces to 216 algs.

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

it has less algs, plus u might already know pll so it reduces to 216 algs.

recog for VLS is kinda bad though compared to ZBLS

 

[acrystal]

recog for VLS is kinda bad though compared to ZBLS

WDYM, 1.which edges are oriented and 2.the orientation of corners
its probably not as bad as ZBLL

 

[AJT17]

WDYM, 1.which edges are oriented and 2.the orientation of corners
its probably not as bad as ZBLL

ZBLL recog is super easy. You only need 3 things, and they are all easier than VLS.
First, you identify which of the 7 OCLL cases you have, which is trivial.
Then, you find out which of the 6 Corner Permutations for whichever OCLL you have.
Last, you recognise the BH pattern, which is essentially 1 of 12 patterns that look at a single corner and the 2 adjacent edges, with only 4 of which have any bit of difficulty, the rest being trivial.
The hardest part about this would be the BH patterns, but they aren't really something you memorise; rather, you get a feel for them as you use ZBLL more.
You are always guaranteed a ZBLL if you do ZBLS, so you never have to create a ZBLL, while with VLS, you need to have a pair made already, and if you don't, then you need to create a pair, and that just takes more moves, so it would be better to just solve the pair followed by OLL-PLL.
There are literally less VLS cases than ZBLS has, and ZBLS has been more developed. ZBLS also has much easier recog, since you only need to look at the EO and where the F2L pieces are, which is much less convoluted than having to already have a pair made or create a pair, then look at both EO and CO. There's a reason why no one ever recommends VLS, because it's just a much worse subset of algs that doesn't even save moves compared to ZBLS.

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

ZBLL recog is super easy. You only need 3 things, and they are all easier than VLS.
First, you identify which of the 7 OCLL cases you have, which is trivial.
Then, you find out which of the 6 Corner Permutations for whichever OCLL you have.
Last, you recognise the BH pattern, which is essentially 1 of 12 patterns that look at a single corner and the 2 adjacent edges, with only 4 of which have any bit of difficulty, the rest being trivial.
The hardest part about this would be the BH patterns, but they aren't really something you memorise; rather, you get a feel for them as you use ZBLL more.
You are always guaranteed a ZBLL if you do ZBLS, so you never have to create a ZBLL, while with VLS, you need to have a pair made already, and if you don't, then you need to create a pair, and that just takes more moves, so it would be better to just solve the pair followed by OLL-PLL.
There are literally less VLS cases than ZBLS has, and ZBLS has been more developed. ZBLS also has much easier recog, since you only need to look at the EO and where the F2L pieces are, which is much less convoluted than having to already have a pair made or create a pair, then look at both EO and CO. There's a reason why no one ever recommends VLS, because it's just a much worse subset of algs that doesn't even save moves compared to ZBLS.

thank you

 

[acrystal]

ZBLL recog is super easy. You only need 3 things, and they are all easier than VLS.
First, you identify which of the 7 OCLL cases you have, which is trivial.
Then, you find out which of the 6 Corner Permutations for whichever OCLL you have.
Last, you recognise the BH pattern, which is essentially 1 of 12 patterns that look at a single corner and the 2 adjacent edges, with only 4 of which have any bit of difficulty, the rest being trivial.
The hardest part about this would be the BH patterns, but they aren't really something you memorise; rather, you get a feel for them as you use ZBLL more.
You are always guaranteed a ZBLL if you do ZBLS, so you never have to create a ZBLL, while with VLS, you need to have a pair made already, and if you don't, then you need to create a pair, and that just takes more moves, so it would be better to just solve the pair followed by OLL-PLL.
There are literally less VLS cases than ZBLS has, and ZBLS has been more developed. ZBLS also has much easier recog, since you only need to look at the EO and where the F2L pieces are, which is much less convoluted than having to already have a pair made or create a pair, then look at both EO and CO. There's a reason why no one ever recommends VLS, because it's just a much worse subset of algs that doesn't even save moves compared to ZBLS.

since when 3<2?
and anyway @Caleb Valenzuela , its ur method anyway do what u want

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

since when 3<2?
and anyway @Caleb Valenzuela , its ur method anyway do what u want

who said i was making the method

there’s a reason we have a team name

 

[AJT17]

since when 3<2?
and anyway @Caleb Valenzuela , its ur method anyway do what u want

Since when does ZBLL compare to VLS?
The more accurate comparison would be between ZBLS and VLS. And in this case, ZBLS only has you looking at 2 things: the EO and the F2L pieces. While VLS has you FIRST creating a pair since you will very rarely get an already-made pair, and only then do you actually look at EO and CO.
Now, if we were to compare these two, ZBLS has fewer algs, only 302, while VLS has 432 algs, which can technically be 216, but mirroring algs isn't great. ZBLS has you looking at only 2 things and has no prerequisites, while VLS has you creating a pair, then looking at EO and CO. So this puts VLS at a disadvantage because you almost never get straight into the alg, giving ZBLS the edge, as it can be solved from any last slot case, no matter what. As for move count, ZBLS also wins out because it averages out to under 10, but I couldn't find any exact numbers. ONLY VLS averages to around 9 moves, which doesn't include creating the pair in the 90% of cases where you don't have a pre-made pair, which would have to add anywhere between 3-5 moves, which makes it worse than ZBLS.
Again, there is a reason no one recommends or uses VLS at any level, it is one of the most pointless algsets. It isn't a stepping stone algset like COLL is to ZBLL, it isn't an effective algset by itself like WV can be, it's just a large algset that tries to solve a problem that has already been outclassed.

 

[-Cube Kid-]

Sooooooo are we not gonna make this?

 

[acrystal]

who said i was making the method

there’s a reason we have a team name

Yeah but u r the method inventor so its ur wish atp

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

Yeah but u r the method inventor so its ur wish atp

idk anymore lol
I keep thinking of APB