proof that my f2l method isn't crap: F2L solve-15.55 seconds

[CuBeOrDiE]

Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.

Fridrich uses a concept witch is used in every single method. In the last step of solving the f2l in Petrus, for example, you make at least one f2l pair. The only difference is that you turn only two sides, but the concept is the same. Also, how is my method like ZZ?I don't even orient a single edge!

PS my method not being creative, a challenge, or fun is an oppinion

PPS lots of methods are related to both Petrus and Fridrich

PPS I love potatoes

 

[Paul Wagner]

The potatoes thing was stupid.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

that's the point

 

[qqwref]

To ironically prove that you're a genious?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Does anyone else have anything to say about my method?

 

[4Chan]

To ironically prove that you're a genious?

I think that this is a doubly ironic statement, because, michael is referencing the way he mis-spelled "genius" in his previous thread, right? o:

 

[JLarsen]

Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.

Fridrich uses a concept witch is used in every single method. In the last step of solving the f2l in Petrus, for example, you make at least one f2l pair. The only difference is that you turn only two sides, but the concept is the same. Also, how is my method like ZZ?I don't even orient a single edge!

PS my method not being creative, a challenge, or fun is an oppinion

PPS lots of methods are related to both Petrus and Fridrich

PPS I love potatoes

I'll buy that you have to make at least one CE pair. You can call it an f2l pair I really don't care. Now, to address some of your points....

The step 4/fridrich comparison- It really is not the same as inserting an f2l pair. For some reason people don't seem to remember that step 4a does not only make f2l pairs, but pairs common with the DR edge as well, not just the f2l edges.....

Your method being like zz- It isn't really a method completely based on it's own concept and merely blends ideas from other methods.

Lots of methods are related to petrus and fridrich- Name one

I like potatoes- Yeah. Me too.

PS- I'm not attacking you or your method just so you know. Text doesn't really show that and I felt the need to clarify.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I'll buy that you have to make at least one CE pair. You can call it an f2l pair I really don't care.

Don't buy. I've got an MGLS-P here, ready to trigger.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.

Fridrich uses a concept witch is used in every single method. In the last step of solving the f2l in Petrus, for example, you make at least one f2l pair. The only difference is that you turn only two sides, but the concept is the same. Also, how is my method like ZZ?I don't even orient a single edge!

PS my method not being creative, a challenge, or fun is an oppinion

PPS lots of methods are related to both Petrus and Fridrich

PPS I love potatoes

I'll buy that you have to make at least one CE pair. You can call it an f2l pair I really don't care. Now, to address some of your points....

The step 4/fridrich comparison- It really is not the same as inserting an f2l pair. For some reason people don't seem to remember that step 4a does not only make f2l pairs, but pairs common with the DR edge as well, not just the f2l edges.....

Your method being like zz- It isn't really a method completely based on it's own concept and merely blends ideas from other methods.

Lots of methods are related to petrus and fridrich- Name one

I like potatoes- Yeah. Me too.

PS- I'm not attacking you or your method just so you know. Text doesn't really show that and I felt the need to clarify.

-You've got a point for step 4, but many speedcubers don't solve that way(at least I don't)

-My method DOES blend different ideas...I was simply taking parts of methods I like and tweaking them to my style(no cube rotations, not much block building, not many f2l pairs...)

-I meant that the CONCEPTS behind Fridrich and Petrus-cross, f2l pairs, block building, and edge orientation are used in many methods; Roux(sort of), begginers method, key hole, x-cross, ZZ...

-Glad someone else likes potatoes. 1 question-do you also like olives?



I know this method isn't the best, but out of 10, how many stars would you rate it? just wondering. thnx

 

[spdcbr]

Dude, use your own "method" if it works for you, but, the people that you are calling "haters" are right. Basically petrus in a less efficient way. I hope I wasn't added to your list of "haters."

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

It is less efficient at FM but it isn't worse for speed. Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus. But I respect your view point and don't consider you a hater. Out of 10 stars, how many would you give my method for SPEED?

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

Okay, I just skipped reading the other 2 pages because they're very repetitive. I think that instead of ranting and raving about what you like (mostly don't like) about the method. Instead, why don't you figure how you can improve the method. That's what I think .

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Okay, I just skipped reading the other 2 pages because they're very repetitive. I think that instead of ranting and raving about what you like (mostly don't like) about the method. Instead, why don't you figure how you can improve the method. That's what I think .

Here's an idea: solve a 1x1x3 line, than by using R , r , U , and u moves, get a 1x2x3 rectangle in the bottom left of the left layer. Then, solve the 2x2x3 bloc, leaving out an edge, and solve f2l by using R , r , and U moves. Afterwards, solve that edge and orient top layer edges. Finish off with OLL-PLL. This way you solve the cube without a single re-grip or cube rotation, and only 28 algs must be memorized. What do you think?

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

Wasn't that the original method :fp?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

nope. in the original method i don't leave out that edge. any suggestions for improvement?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

of my method

PS how do you do that face thing?

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

Well, it would be fast to put the edge in and solve the entire OLL that would make up for the moves and speed you lost on the last have of the 1x2x3 block. But that's 57 algorithms. So you would have to learn that for your method.

P.S. Click on those pictures to the right and it will post a code that shows that picture. You can't post pictures when you edit.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

OK idea but 57 algs is WAY to much for me. LOL

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

Learn 1 algorithm every 3 days. That's how I learned fridrich!

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

any more ideas?