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

[miniGOINGS]

Petrus on average takes less moves then Roux. Depending on how you do the last layer of Petrus can change that though. But Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.

I really think it depends on the solver though.

 

[JLarsen]

Petrus on average takes less moves then Roux. Depending on how you do the last layer of Petrus can change that though. But Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.

I really think it depends on the solver though.

Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.

Then what are we waiting for? But blockbuilding is comprised of:
1. Look ahead
2. Optimization
3. Turning speed
and many more. Just because one method is more efficient doesn't mean it will be faster and better for someone. That's just my 2 cents worth though.

 

[JLarsen]

Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.

Then what are we waiting for? But blockbuilding is comprised of:
1. Look ahead
2. Optimization
3. Turning speed
and many more. Just because one method is more efficient doesn't mean it will be faster and better for someone. That's just my 2 cents worth though.

I completely agree but I wasn't looking at the relevance of the question, rather the content.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I completely agree but I wasn't looking at the relevance of the question, rather the content.

Ok, so Johannes it is.

 

[joey]

This isn't block building.. nor is it beginners block building.

Petrus *can* be learned as a beginners method.

I also really dislike the face CubeOrDie does double/triple posts. Especially dumb ones like "5mins before I go", "2mins now". Please, sort it out.

 

[edd5190]

any more I's?

has everyone left this thread?

5 more minutes...

2 more minutes...plz respond

Does anyone else have anything to say about my method?

any more ideas?

People will respond because they want to, not because someone spams requests to respond. There's also a button that lets you edit your posts that eliminates the need to make new posts. It's the one that says "EDIT" on it.

no edge orientation, simpler, no block building, one cube rotation max

I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.

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?

That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving with Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.

Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.

You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.

This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)

I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.

It makes for an easy transition into petrus.

I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.

 

[jms_gears1]

Believe it or not it is a block building method. Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented. This method is more intuitive then lbl. I think that it works.

 

[Johannes91]

Which on average takes less moves roux or petrus?

Roux
Step 1: 5.1
Step 2: 10.0
Step 3: 9?
Step 4: 11.1
Total: ~35

Petrus
Step 1: 4.9
Step 2+3: 8.5
Step 4: 10.0
ZBLL: 12.6
Total: ~36

These just a quick approximation and the numbers aren't really comparable; S2 and S4 in Roux are STM and everything else is FTM, ZBLL might be harder than optimal Roux S4, etc.. But it shows that both methods have enough potential that nobody will ever reach the "limit" and the differences between individual cubers is much bigger than the methods.

Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.

Actually, it's a well known secret that Triangular Francisco Method and KALTCHENKO METHOD are even more efficient.

Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented.

...

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

any more I's?

has everyone left this thread?

5 more minutes...

2 more minutes...plz respond

Does anyone else have anything to say about my method?

any more ideas?

People will respond because they want to, not because someone spams requests to respond. There's also a button that lets you edit your posts that eliminates the need to make new posts. It's the one that says "EDIT" on it.

no edge orientation, simpler, no block building, one cube rotation max

I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.[/QUOTE]

You can easily avoid cube rotations during the building of your 2x2x3, and one cube rotation is all you need to solve the rest. No edge orientation doesnt mean 57 OLL's. You can use two-look, and only nine OLL's are needed. It might take six more moves, but it takes that many to orient edges BEFORE finishing f2l usually. also, sometimes, intuitive moves aren't that great for speed. If you think only 2 or 3 algs are gonna cut it YOURE WRONG. And it is possible to insert the last c/e pair (not edge)and get your edges oriented. It can be done without memorizing algs.

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?

[/QUOTE]That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving with Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.[/QUOTE]


Its not efficient for FM, but this method isn't so much a FM method as an intro to block building and FM in general(gotta clarify that.)And my method IS block building. Inserting edges CREATES blocks, and the last two steps are a 1x2x2 bloc and an f2l pair, not an edge with two f2l pairs.And, really, even f2l pairs is block building

Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.

[/QUOTE]You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.[/QUOTE]

not quite...bloc building requires more consentration then edge insertion. You probably just aren't used to this, since the only official method that comes close to mine is keyhole. Edge insertion is simpler because you don't have acorner that must be correctly placed.

This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)

[/QUOTE]I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.[/QUOTE]

NO! I've tried petrus for over a two months and my method for only a month.PLz stop hating

It makes for an easy transition into petrus.

[/QUOTE]I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.[/Q

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.[/QUOTE]

Layer methods take WAY to much time and are really difficult. Edge insertion is simple, if you work on it for a few days.And this idea not being good is an oppinion,not a fact.And this method is still kinda block building, just condensed and simplified for BEGGINER BLOCK BZUILDERS




Hope I covered some of your concerns if you have any more plz comment again.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

no edge orientation, simpler, no block building, one cube rotation max

[/QUOTE]I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.[/QUOTE]

You can easily avoid cube rotations during the building of your 2x2x3, and one cube rotation is all you need to solve the rest. No edge orientation doesnt mean 57 OLL's. You can use two-look, and only nine OLL's are needed. It might take six more moves, but it takes that many to orient edges BEFORE finishing f2l usually. also, sometimes, intuitive moves aren't that great for speed. If you think only 2 or 3 algs are gonna cut it YOURE WRONG. And it is possible to insert the last c/e pair (not edge)and get your edges oriented. It can be done without memorizing algs.

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?

[/QUOTE]That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving with Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.[/QUOTE]


Its not efficient for FM, but this method isn't so much a FM method as an intro to block building and FM in general(gotta clarify that.)And my method IS block building. Inserting edges CREATES blocks, and the last two steps are a 1x2x2 bloc and an f2l pair, not an edge with two f2l pairs.And, really, even f2l pairs is block building

Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.

[/QUOTE]You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.[/QUOTE]

not quite...bloc building requires more consentration then edge insertion. You probably just aren't used to this, since the only official method that comes close to mine is keyhole. Edge insertion is simpler because you don't have acorner that must be correctly placed.

This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)

[/QUOTE]I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.[/QUOTE]

NO! I've tried petrus for over a two months and my method for only a month.PLz stop hating

It makes for an easy transition into petrus.

[/QUOTE]I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.[/Q

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.[/QUOTE]

Layer methods take WAY to much time and are really difficult to speedsolve with. Edge insertion is simple, if you work on it for a few days.And this idea not being good is an oppinion,not a fact.And this method is still kinda block building, just condensed and simplified for BEGGINER BLOCK BUILDERS




Hope I covered some of your concerns if you have any more plz comment again.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

I just found it necessary to let him know that a beginner's method has limitations.

Begginer methods have limitations, but for that matter, so do all methods. For example, Petrus has limitations on time because of all the complex 1x2x2 block building and a not to great LL method. Not meaning to offend, just saying.

 

[blade740]

Please. PLEASE. Stop posting after yourself. This topic would be half as many pages if you would just edit your last post if you want to add something.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I believe less than half actually.

 

[MTGjumper]

PS ive only been speedcubing for a year

Hey, Feliks and Rowan, how long have you been cubing? For what it's worth, I've been cubing a year and a half.

In addition to the other complaints (double/triple posting, prompting others to post etc) please use quote boxes properly

 

[Zaxef]

Can we stop bumping this flame war please
Let the kid use his method if he wants to
This isn't any different than just accepting that people use ZZ/Roux/Petrus..
His method might not be the "best" to your standards and it may just take from other methods, but I think it takes good understanding of methods and the cube to "fuse" two or more methods together like that and create your own way of solving the cube.

So just leave the kid be

 

[Zaxef]

For my first month of cubing, I was using a broken cube that would pop every other turn, and there was one month were I didn't cube, so I've actually only been cubing for 10 months. And how do you use quotes correctly?

By making sure every [ quote ] tag has a [ /quote ] tag that matches with it..


UHM... How the hell did I quote the post BELOW me?!? LOL

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

PS ive only been speedcubing for a year

Hey, Feliks and Rowan, how long have you been cubing? For what it's worth, I've been cubing a year and a half.

In addition to the other complaints (double/triple posting, prompting others to post etc) please use quote boxes properly

For my first month of cubing, I was using a broken cube that would pop every other turn, and there was one month were I didn't cube, so I've actually only been cubing for 10 months. And how do you use quotes correctly?

 

[Escher]

PS ive only been speedcubing for a year

Hey, Feliks and Rowan, how long have you been cubing? For what it's worth, I've been cubing a year and a half.

In addition to the other complaints (double/triple posting, prompting others to post etc) please use quote boxes properly

I've been cubing since may last year, so 1 year and 3 months. After a year of cubing I think I had a sub 14 avg of 12 PB. Current PB is 11.71.
Not that it matters.
Yu Nakajima had been cubing for about a year when he won Worlds, hadn't he?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

PS ive only been speedcubing for a year

Hey, Feliks and Rowan, how long have you been cubing? For what it's worth, I've been cubing a year and a half.

In addition to the other complaints (double/triple posting, prompting others to post etc) please use quote boxes properly

I've been cubing since may last year, so 1 year and 3 months. After a year of cubing I think I had a sub 14 avg of 12 PB. Current PB is 11.71.
Not that it matters.
Yu Nakajima had been cubing for about a year when he won Worlds, hadn't he?

No idea. At least I try though...

New PB average of 5-24.4 seconds woot!