Michael Wimberly
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2025
- Messages
- 1,418
- Location
- The Backrooms
- WCA ID
- 2026WIMB01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
The Orcuber's Hunt For The Best 3x3 Method
- Thread starter 0rcoraCuber21
- Start date
acrystal
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2026
- Messages
- 1,955
- Location
- Hyderabad
- WCA ID
- 2025VEER03
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
true ik but i was thinking something else, and that was wrong lol
Caleb Valenzuela
Legend
they didn’t really “colonize” us like Spain did, they just used our land and resources, but they didn’t really try and reform the country.
acrystal
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2026
- Messages
- 1,955
- Location
- Hyderabad
- WCA ID
- 2025VEER03
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
which was why there was an asterisk
Ralph Laurence
Regular
Colonized by spain for about 3 century that I’m not even sure if I’m pure filipino
Last edited:
Martyt7777
Veteran
Caleb Valenzuela
Legend
those guys had the least influence over usanother member who’s country was attacked by Japan
Sub20Soon
Veteran
bro why is this thread getting into school ahh shi like let me rest one month left
Caleb Valenzuela
Legend
I had an interesting idea that could be applied in either APB or CFOP (from like a few months ago)
this is from my “method making progression thread”actually I have a better idea:
do what I call:LSLE
Martyt7777
Veteran
Didn’t they occupy all of the islands or am I stupidthose guys had the least influence over us
Japanese occupation of the Philippines - Wikipedia
Caleb Valenzuela
Legend
when i said “influence”, i meant the overall lifestyle of the citizens in the Philippines. We still have a lot of the bad habits from Spain.Didn’t they occupy all of the islands or am I stupid
Japanese occupation of the Philippines - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sub20Soon
Veteran
Ohh i think this is a good idea but if i understood, it will highen the number of algs for ZBLS, but lower them for ZBLL. This could be a good idea for the last layer.
CrossPetrus
Veteran
Bro one month, I’m on my last week.
Caleb Valenzuela
Legend
bro last week? I still have 2 months of school left
Martyt7777
Veteran
I feel like it will have at least 1200 algs for LS, could be wrong tho
Ralph Laurence
Regular
Got an Idea can be used for APB as well, already requires advance techniques tho, will play around with it first and see if it’s sharable
CrossPetrus
Veteran
Yeah, that’s what I meant, I only have a week left of school + monday.
acrystal
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2026
- Messages
- 1,955
- Location
- Hyderabad
- WCA ID
- 2025VEER03
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
BRUH my holidays already started, and theres one month left
n0nco
Veteran
OK so I finally finished reading the whole thread, and I mean no offence... but there have been next to 0 steps in the direction of actually creating a high-potential method, there have just been a ton of ideas thrown around.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm by no means a good solver, and this is just my thoughts/opinion.
I believe an ideal method would have all these qualities:
1. Rotationless, some good ways of achieving this is with EO, or having a free M-slice, like in Roux (Ideally EO is done within the first half of the solve, if we use it)
2. Good ergonomics (A low amount of regrips, 2-3 gen most of the solve)
3. <50 movecount, better yet if that can be achieved without ZBLL, although if we have to accept a low 50 movecount average (without ZBLL) for the sake of ergonomics, i think that'd be fair enough.
4. Good lookahead, the most important area to solve early to help with lookahead is the dL and dB areas
5. Good recog, self-explanatory enough, ties in with good lookahead, as solving those areas helps recog too
A low movecount is primarily achieved, in most low MC methods, via blockbuilding (and also achieved in methods focused around Domino-Reduction, like SSC), so I'd suggest a blockbuilding start, with a 1x2x3 block on L/R, and optionally expanding to 2x2x3, this approach would work towards all 5 criteria I pointed out:
For avoiding rotations, solving the 1x2x3 allows M slice abuse, and could lead to promptly solving EO.
For good ergonomics, it opens the way to RU-gen, and a free M-slice can help as well.
Low MC is self-explanatory.
For good Lookahead and recog, it solves the dL of the cube, so it helps with both.
I also believe:
EO would be a good step to involve, since it's the easiest way to make the method rotationless. (And allows ZBLL)
Simply solving the First 2 Layers, then allowing any LL solution would be great, messing with the top face during F2L is finicky, and often involves large alg sets. ZBLL would be the ideal, but allowing OCLL/WV into PLL would also be good for less advanced solvers.
I personally feel we ought to avoid Last Slot alg sets, but y'all may disagree.
A primarily algorithmic approach would be good, especially in a way akin to CFOP's.
We should avoid reinventing petrus, since that's easy to accidentally do.
I likely have some more thoughts on this, but I'm too tired to conjure them up right now, in that same vein, you'll have to excuse any typos, awkward phrasing, or potentially unextensive coverage of topics.
I don't mean to be overbearing with this/saying we HAVE to follow by this, or to act as though I'm definitely right, when I'm inexperienced; I just thought this thread needs some direction, and criteria to focus on.
I'm curious if y'all agree with a blockbuilding approach alongside EO, and the other opinions I shared, or if your opinions differ.
Hopefully this is helpful and not an incoherent mess.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm by no means a good solver, and this is just my thoughts/opinion.
I believe an ideal method would have all these qualities:
1. Rotationless, some good ways of achieving this is with EO, or having a free M-slice, like in Roux (Ideally EO is done within the first half of the solve, if we use it)
2. Good ergonomics (A low amount of regrips, 2-3 gen most of the solve)
3. <50 movecount, better yet if that can be achieved without ZBLL, although if we have to accept a low 50 movecount average (without ZBLL) for the sake of ergonomics, i think that'd be fair enough.
4. Good lookahead, the most important area to solve early to help with lookahead is the dL and dB areas
5. Good recog, self-explanatory enough, ties in with good lookahead, as solving those areas helps recog too
A low movecount is primarily achieved, in most low MC methods, via blockbuilding (and also achieved in methods focused around Domino-Reduction, like SSC), so I'd suggest a blockbuilding start, with a 1x2x3 block on L/R, and optionally expanding to 2x2x3, this approach would work towards all 5 criteria I pointed out:
For avoiding rotations, solving the 1x2x3 allows M slice abuse, and could lead to promptly solving EO.
For good ergonomics, it opens the way to RU-gen, and a free M-slice can help as well.
Low MC is self-explanatory.
For good Lookahead and recog, it solves the dL of the cube, so it helps with both.
I also believe:
EO would be a good step to involve, since it's the easiest way to make the method rotationless. (And allows ZBLL)
Simply solving the First 2 Layers, then allowing any LL solution would be great, messing with the top face during F2L is finicky, and often involves large alg sets. ZBLL would be the ideal, but allowing OCLL/WV into PLL would also be good for less advanced solvers.
I personally feel we ought to avoid Last Slot alg sets, but y'all may disagree.
A primarily algorithmic approach would be good, especially in a way akin to CFOP's.
We should avoid reinventing petrus, since that's easy to accidentally do.
I likely have some more thoughts on this, but I'm too tired to conjure them up right now, in that same vein, you'll have to excuse any typos, awkward phrasing, or potentially unextensive coverage of topics.
I don't mean to be overbearing with this/saying we HAVE to follow by this, or to act as though I'm definitely right, when I'm inexperienced; I just thought this thread needs some direction, and criteria to focus on.
I'm curious if y'all agree with a blockbuilding approach alongside EO, and the other opinions I shared, or if your opinions differ.
Hopefully this is helpful and not an incoherent mess.
Last edited:
AJT17
Veteran
Another thing I don't think I've seen mentioned in this thread is inspection depth. If you want to create a method that is better than CFOP/ZB, then it needs to be able to compete with them at inspection depth as well. Currently, Yiheng and Xuanyi can see cross+3 in inspection, Xuanyi more than Yiheng, so this gives them the opportunity to 3/4-look solves depending on the method. Depending on scrambles, this could allow 2-look solves from Xuanyi if he can inspect up to ZBLS, which he has demonstrated in this video.
So, if you want to create a method better than ZB, it needs to at least be able to be 3-looked every time. This means the method needs to start out in a way that allows a top solver to be able to look as deeply into the solution as possible, so there can't be any weird movesets or patterns. Though this does restrict a lot of approaches, because with some intuitive solving styles like blockbuilding, it becomes more difficult to track what you're doing the deeper you get into inspection. The main reason F2L allows for such deep inspection depth compared to other methods we've seen is that it always has you undoing moves. This allows solvers to easily track many pieces with little effort because they don't move much, allowing for much deeper inspection. This is extremely difficult to beat when trying to create a better method because blockbuilding doesn't use the same ideology as F2L. There are a lot of one-sided movesets, which makes it difficult to track pieces as they are moved around much more without being restored.
Though this doesn't apply to most solvers, because their inspection depth is much less developed. So, the method should have a linear flow like F2L, allowing solvers to gradually learn to inspect deeper as they become more advanced. Since CFOP/ZB allow a solver to start by planning only cross, then move up to cross+1, then cross+2, then cross+3, the method needs to have a similar progression that accounts for beginner to advanced solvers.
Additionally, to create the best method, it is almost guaranteed to end with ZBLL. Even though it is 493 algs, it doesn't make it bad or difficult to learn, it's just the most optimal algset to end off a solve. So far, ZBLL has the best balance between efficiency and ability to learn, unlike 1LLL or OLL-PLL, it is a balanced middle ground that doesn't require thousands of algs, but also doesn't require multiple looks or more moves. This doesn't restrict the method to ZBLL for all skill levels, though, since, just like CFOP, it can start out ending with OLL-PLL, but have the option of ZBLL for more advanced solvers. I've seen a lot of people trying to figure out some 'better' algset than ZBLL to end off the solve, but it likely doesn't exist without having some major downside. 1LLL, for example, has the potential to average somewhere between 11-13 moves, while ZBLL is currently around 13-15 moves, so that makes it more efficient, but the major downside comes from the amount of algs which make it unviable for the final alg to end off a solve. Likewise, OLL-PLL has the advantage of being 78 algorithms, but the major downside is that it requires 2 looks to solve the cube and averages 21-23 moves. ZBLL is the current perfect middle ground, being only 493 algs, but averaging 13-15 moves using the best algs. In recent years, it has been demonstrated that it's easily possible to learn full ZBLL at the highest level and see improvement from OLL-PLL, even from older cubers like Tymon Kolasiński, Kyle Santucci, Ryan Pilat, and Luke Griesser. So, the point I'm making is that there realistically won't be a better LL method than ZBLL, and examples like L.O.T. just aren't going to best it. So the most optimisation you can get from trying to create a better method will come from building the first 2 layers rather than from optimising the LL, as ZBLL is likely the most optimised LL can get.
So, if you want to create a method better than ZB, it needs to at least be able to be 3-looked every time. This means the method needs to start out in a way that allows a top solver to be able to look as deeply into the solution as possible, so there can't be any weird movesets or patterns. Though this does restrict a lot of approaches, because with some intuitive solving styles like blockbuilding, it becomes more difficult to track what you're doing the deeper you get into inspection. The main reason F2L allows for such deep inspection depth compared to other methods we've seen is that it always has you undoing moves. This allows solvers to easily track many pieces with little effort because they don't move much, allowing for much deeper inspection. This is extremely difficult to beat when trying to create a better method because blockbuilding doesn't use the same ideology as F2L. There are a lot of one-sided movesets, which makes it difficult to track pieces as they are moved around much more without being restored.
Though this doesn't apply to most solvers, because their inspection depth is much less developed. So, the method should have a linear flow like F2L, allowing solvers to gradually learn to inspect deeper as they become more advanced. Since CFOP/ZB allow a solver to start by planning only cross, then move up to cross+1, then cross+2, then cross+3, the method needs to have a similar progression that accounts for beginner to advanced solvers.
Additionally, to create the best method, it is almost guaranteed to end with ZBLL. Even though it is 493 algs, it doesn't make it bad or difficult to learn, it's just the most optimal algset to end off a solve. So far, ZBLL has the best balance between efficiency and ability to learn, unlike 1LLL or OLL-PLL, it is a balanced middle ground that doesn't require thousands of algs, but also doesn't require multiple looks or more moves. This doesn't restrict the method to ZBLL for all skill levels, though, since, just like CFOP, it can start out ending with OLL-PLL, but have the option of ZBLL for more advanced solvers. I've seen a lot of people trying to figure out some 'better' algset than ZBLL to end off the solve, but it likely doesn't exist without having some major downside. 1LLL, for example, has the potential to average somewhere between 11-13 moves, while ZBLL is currently around 13-15 moves, so that makes it more efficient, but the major downside comes from the amount of algs which make it unviable for the final alg to end off a solve. Likewise, OLL-PLL has the advantage of being 78 algorithms, but the major downside is that it requires 2 looks to solve the cube and averages 21-23 moves. ZBLL is the current perfect middle ground, being only 493 algs, but averaging 13-15 moves using the best algs. In recent years, it has been demonstrated that it's easily possible to learn full ZBLL at the highest level and see improvement from OLL-PLL, even from older cubers like Tymon Kolasiński, Kyle Santucci, Ryan Pilat, and Luke Griesser. So, the point I'm making is that there realistically won't be a better LL method than ZBLL, and examples like L.O.T. just aren't going to best it. So the most optimisation you can get from trying to create a better method will come from building the first 2 layers rather than from optimising the LL, as ZBLL is likely the most optimised LL can get.
Similar threads
